People ex rel. Rahn v. Vohra
2017 IL App (2d) 160953
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Relator Gregory Rahn, a former visiting professor at Northern Illinois University (NIU), filed a pro se quo warranto complaint seeking to oust Promod Vohra as dean of the College of Engineering and Engineering Technology and to punish alleged misconduct (ineligibility, plagiarism cover-up, improper graduation of his daughter, misuse of NIU police).
- Trial court granted Rahn leave to file; Vohra (through the Attorney General) objected and moved to dismiss, asserting lack of standing, undue delay, and res judicata based on Rahn’s prior federal litigation.
- Vohra resigned as dean during the litigation; he also argued the resignation rendered the quo warranto action moot.
- Rahn argued the case was not moot because section 18-108 allows fines and costs in addition to ouster, a judgment would help invalidate contracts executed under ostensible authority, and the case could assist future litigation.
- The trial court dismissed the complaint as moot (initially without prejudice, then with prejudice on reconsideration). Rahn appealed.
- The appellate court held the resignation did not automatically render the case moot (court can still impose fines/costs), but affirmed the dismissal on the independent ground that Rahn lacked standing to bring quo warranto.
Issues
| Issue | Rahn's Argument | Vohra's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Mootness after resignation | Case not moot because section 18-108 authorizes fines/costs; criminal-like nature prevents avoidance by resignation | Resignation removes available relief (ouster) and thus moots the action | Not moot: possibility of fines/costs preserves justiciable controversy |
| Standing to bring quo warranto | Rahn claimed a distinct personal interest based on prior federal suits and personal harms from Vohra’s conduct | Rahn lacks a personal, distinct interest (he’s not a member of the governed body, and his federal suit was resolved against him) | No standing: Rahn did not allege the required distinct, direct, and current personal interest |
| Res judicata / claim preclusion | Federal litigation did not address appointment eligibility, plagiarism, or other alleged misconduct | Claims arise from same operative facts and are barred by prior final judgment | Appellate court affirmed on standing; it did not rely on res judicata to dispose of the appeal |
| Nature of quo warranto (civil vs. criminal) | Quo warranto retains criminal character; resignation shouldn’t defeat prosecution | Quo warranto is civil in Illinois and remedies are statutory (ouster/fines) | Quo warranto is a civil remedy in Illinois (not a criminal prosecution) |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Courtney v. Botts, 376 Ill. 476 (Ill. 1941) (quo warranto not Moot where statute allows fines—resignation does not necessarily defeat jurisdiction)
- People ex rel. Daley v. Datacom Systems Corp., 146 Ill. 2d 1 (Ill. 1991) (where fines remain available, quo warranto claim is not moot; mootness argument is outside quo warranto’s scope in that context)
- People ex rel. Black v. Dukes, 96 Ill. 2d 273 (Ill. 1983) (resignation can render quo warranto moot where plaintiff sought only ouster and no punishment)
- People ex rel. Miller v. Fullenwider, 329 Ill. 65 (Ill. 1928) (relator must have an interest distinct from the public to pursue quo warranto)
- People v. Gartenstein, 248 Ill. 546 (Ill. 1911) (descriptive discussion of quo warranto’s historical criminal/formal characteristics)