Illinois Supreme Court· 9/22/2005

Crusius v. Illinois Gaming Board

Citations

837 N.E.2d 88
216 Ill. 2d 315
297 Ill. Dec. 308
2005 Ill. LEXIS 962

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

explaining that a special legislation challenge is typically reviewed “under the - 19 - No. 1-23-0803 same standards applicable to an equal protection challenge”
“It is not our place to second-guess the wisdom of a statute that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest ***.”
while Emerald Casino’s administrative appeal was pending before the Illinois Gaming Board, legislation was enacted allowing “[a] licensee that was not conducting riverboat gambling on January 1, 1998” (Emerald
“It is not our place to second-guess the wisdom of a statute that is rationally related to a legitimate state interest ***.”
statute discriminated in favor of “licensees that were ‘not conducting riverboat gambling on January 1, 1998’ (230 ILCS 10/11.2(a) (West 2000)),” of which Emerald Casino, Inc., was the only one
“For a provision in a law to pass the rational basis test, it does not have to promote all of the law’s disparate and potentially conflicting objectives.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Garman, Thomas, Freeman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Crusius v. Illinois Gaming Board

2 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.