![Heidelberger v. Jewel Companies](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![Heidelberger v. Jewel Companies](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
Heidelberger v. Jewel Companies
57 Ill.2d 87, 312 N.E.2d 601, IL.0000405(1974)
-
- 0,99 €
-
- 0,99 €
Descrição da editora
In two class actions, which were consolidated for trial in the circuit court of Cook County, plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and a refund of check-cashing fees paid to defendant, Jewel Companies, Inc. The complaints alleged as a basis for the relief sought that defendant's cashing of checks for persons in its grocery stores for a fee of five cents per check constituted the operation of a community currency exchange for which defendant was not licensed under the Community Currency Exchange Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1971, ch. 16 1/2, par. 30 et seq.). Defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied by the circuit court, and the appellate court thereafter allowed a petition for leave to appeal under our Rule 308 (50 Ill.2d R. 308) for the purpose of considering questions of law as to which it was found by the trial judge that there were substantial grounds for differences of opinion and that immediate appeal might materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation. We transferred that appeal to this court under Rule 302(b). The statutory provisions which are determinative of the issues presented by this case are found in sections .01 and 1 of the Community Currency Exchange Act. Section .01 includes various findings and declarations pertaining to community currency exchanges: