McFatridge v. Madigan
2013 IL 113676
Ill.2013Background
- McFatridge served as Edgar County State's Attorney from 1980–1991 and faced civil lawsuits arising from his prosecution decisions.
- Steidl and Whitlock, prosecuted by McFatridge, were later overturned or remanded, with Steidl eventually released after habeas relief.
- Steidl and Whitlock suits alleged misconduct by McFatridge, including fabrication of evidence and suppression of favorable testimony.
- McFatridge requested defense under 5 ILCS 350/2 from the Attorney General; AG declined citing alleged intentional, wilful, or wanton misconduct.
- Edgar County and McFatridge filed a mandamus action to compel payment of defense costs as incurred; the circuit court dismissed.
- Appellate court reversed, holding elected officials have a clear right to be reimbursed as costs accrue regardless of AG’s findings on misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 5 ILCS 350/2(b) first paragraph defeats elected official coverage. | McFatridge: elected official is within first paragraph’s coverage and thus entitled to costs as incurred. | Madigan: second paragraph governs elected officials and does not require mandatory payment as incurred when misconduct is involved. | No; second paragraph does not displace first; elected official may be reimbursed if within scope and not misconduct. |
| Whether the elected official defense right exists when misconduct is alleged and the AG declines. | McFatridge: still entitled to defense costs if within scope and not found misconduct; AG's determination is not dispositive. | Madigan: if misconduct is alleged, AG may decline defense and no automatic payment obligation. | The Act permits reimbursement only if within scope and not intentional, wilful, or wanton misconduct and not otherwise declined. |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Senko v. Meersman, 2012 IL 114163 (Illinois Supreme Court 2012) (mandamus standard for nondiscretionary duties by public officers)
- Konetski v. People, 233 Ill. 2d 193 (Illinois Supreme Court 2009) (mandamus elements: clear right, duty, and authority)
- DeHart v. DeHart, 2013 IL 114137 (Illinois Supreme Court 2013) (standard for 2-615 dismissal when no recoverable facts)
- Knolls Condominium Ass’n. v. Harms, 202 Ill. 2d 450 (Illinois Supreme Court 2002) (specific vs general provision controlling when both exist)
- People v. Howard, 233 Ill. 2d 213 (Illinois Supreme Court 2009) (statutory interpretation using plain meaning; no extrinsic sources)
- Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon, 216 Ill. 2d 402 (Illinois Supreme Court 2005) (when general vs specific provisions; avoid reading language into statute)
- County of Knox ex rel. Masterson v. The Highlands, L.L.C., 188 Ill. 2d 546 (Illinois Supreme Court 1999) (statutory interpretation regarding inclusion/exclusion in statutes)
- Nottage v. Jeka, 172 Ill. 2d 386 (Illinois Supreme Court 1996) (avoid adding requirements inconsistent with plain enacted language)
- Chicago Teachers Union, Local No. 1 v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2012 IL 112566 (Illinois Supreme Court 2012) (statutory interpretation in public employee protections context)