Skip to main content
Article
The curious, perjurious requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12b3.pdf
Southern Illinois University Law Journal (2015)
  • Wm. Dennis Huber
Abstract
A 2010 survey of Illinois Civil Procedure discussed recent amendments to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules that apply to civil practice issues.1  The survey began with Notices of Appeal and a substantial part of the survey of Notices of Appeal was devoted to Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.2  The purpose of this Article is to examine in greater depth the requirements of filing notices of appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12(b)(3) and the corresponding proof of service of Rule 373. Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12(b)(3) has what can only be called “curious, perjurious requirements.”  They are curious because, in conjunction with Rule 373, they require an affiant to state under penalty of perjury that he or she has personal knowledge of events that have not yet occurred.  They are perjurious because they require the affiants to state under oath or penalty of perjury that they already performed an act when in fact they did not and could not have performed at the time the affidavit was executed.  The rule in essence states “unless you swear you performed an act that you did not actually perform your case will not be heard by the court.”
Keywords
  • Illinois Supreme Rule 12(B)(3),
  • proof of service,
  • postmark,
  • affidavits,
  • perjury
Disciplines
Publication Date
June 26, 2015
Citation Information
Wm. Dennis Huber. "The curious, perjurious requirements of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12b3.pdf" Southern Illinois University Law Journal Vol. 39 Iss. 3 (2015) p. 451 - 473
Available at: http://works.bepress.com/wmdennis_huber/9/