Moore v. Radae

The Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, recently issued an unpublished order in *Moore v. Radae*, 2026 IL App (5th) 240795-U, on July 10, 2026. This decision, designated as a Rule 23 order, falls under the purview of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, which governs the publication and citation of appellate court decisions. While such orders are not precedential, an amendment to Rule 23, effective January 1, 2021, permits their citation for persuasive purposes in cases issued on or after that date. This development in *Moore v. Radae* serves as a timely reminder for practitioners regarding the nuanced application of appellate court orders and their limited, albeit now permissible, role in legal argumentation within Illinois.

On July 10, 2026, the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, filed its decision in *Moore v. Radae*, identified by the neutral citation 2026 IL App (5th) 240795-U. This particular ruling is designated as an unpublished order under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23, a classification that carries significant implications for its precedential value and utility in legal practice. As a recent pronouncement from one of Illinois' intermediate appellate courts, *Moore v. Radae* highlights the ongoing importance of understanding the procedural framework governing appellate review in the state, particularly concerning the distinction between published opinions and unpublished orders.

The filing of *Moore v. Radae* underscores a critical aspect of Illinois appellate jurisprudence: the role and impact of non-precedential decisions. For practicing attorneys, navigating the landscape of Illinois Appellate Court decisions requires a keen awareness of Supreme Court Rule 23, especially following its amendment in 2021. This article will delve into the nature of Rule 23 orders, the specific context of the Fifth District, and the practical considerations for legal professionals when encountering and potentially citing such unpublished decisions.

The Illinois judicial system operates with a three-tiered structure, comprising circuit courts, the Appellate Court, and the Supreme Court. The Illinois Appellate Court serves as the primary avenue for appeals from circuit court decisions, organized into five districts across the state. The Fifth District, based in Mt. Vernon, holds jurisdiction over appeals originating from 48 counties in central and southern Illinois. Decisions from these appellate courts are generally issued as either published opinions or unpublished orders.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23 dictates the circumstances under which an appellate court decision is published as an opinion, thereby establishing binding precedent, or issued as an unpublished order. Historically, Rule 23 orders were strictly non-precedential and could not be cited by any party, except in very limited circumstances such as claims of *res judicata* or collateral estoppel. However, a significant amendment to Rule 23, effective January 1, 2021, altered this landscape. The amended rule now permits litigants to cite unpublished orders issued on or after that date for *persuasive* authority, though they remain non-precedential. This change was a response to evolving legal research methods and a desire to allow practitioners access to a broader body of judicial reasoning.

The decision in *Moore v. Radae*, being a 2026 IL App (5th) 240795-U order, falls squarely under the amended Illinois Supreme Court Rule 23. The "-U" suffix in its citation explicitly denotes its status as an unpublished order. This means that while the decision resolves the specific dispute between Moore and Radae, it does not establish binding precedent that other courts in Illinois must follow. Its value lies in its potential to offer persuasive guidance, particularly where it applies established legal principles to a unique factual matrix.

For practitioners, the ability to cite *Moore v. Radae* for persuasive purposes, as allowed by the amended Rule 23, presents both opportunities and responsibilities. When citing such an order, attorneys must provide a copy of the order to all other counsel and to the court, ensuring transparency and accessibility. It is crucial to remember that an appellate court is not bound to follow the reasoning in any unpublished order, even its own. Therefore, while *Moore v. Radae* might illustrate how the Fifth District has applied a particular statute or common law principle in a similar factual scenario, it cannot be presented as controlling authority.

The rationale behind maintaining a distinction between published opinions and unpublished orders, even with the allowance for persuasive citation, remains pertinent. Appellate courts often issue Rule 23 orders in cases that involve the application of settled law to specific facts, where the legal issues are not novel, or where the decision does not create or resolve a conflict of authority. This mechanism helps manage the volume of appellate decisions and ensures that only those rulings that truly contribute to the development of Illinois law become binding precedent. The recent filing of *Moore v. Radae* exemplifies the routine work of the appellate courts in resolving disputes without necessarily expanding the body of binding legal precedent.

Furthermore, practitioners should be aware that decisions are initially posted as "Slip" opinions or orders and are not yet final. They may be subject to modification if petitions for rehearing are filed within 21 days or if the court makes changes on its own motion. Therefore, caution is advised when citing any slip opinion or order, including *Moore v. Radae*, as its text could potentially change.

The filing of *Moore v. Radae*, 2026 IL App (5th) 240795-U, by the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth District, serves as a contemporary illustration of the Illinois appellate process and the application of Supreme Court Rule 23. While the specific facts and substantive legal issues of this unpublished order are not publicly detailed, its designation underscores the critical distinction between precedential opinions and persuasive orders in Illinois jurisprudence. Attorneys practicing in Illinois must remain diligent in understanding and correctly applying the nuances of Rule 23, particularly the requirement to provide copies of cited unpublished orders and to acknowledge their non-binding nature.

As the legal landscape continues to evolve with technological advancements and amendments to procedural rules, practitioners are encouraged to consult the most current version of the Illinois Supreme Court Rules and to exercise careful judgment when incorporating unpublished decisions into their legal arguments. The *Moore v. Radae* decision, though non-precedential, reminds the bar that even orders of limited authority can offer valuable insights into judicial reasoning and the application of law, provided they are utilized appropriately and with full transparency to the court and opposing counsel.