Promisco v. Dart
Illinois Appellate Court
981 N.E.2d 1005 (2012)
- Written by Darius Dehghan, JD
Facts
Kenneth Promisco (plaintiff) was a deputy sheriff in Cook County (county) (defendant). Promisco submitted a urine sample for drug testing. The county sent the sample to Pharmatech, Inc., a drug-testing laboratory. Pharmatech sent back a printout indicating that Promisco’s sample tested positive for marijuana. Subsequently, an administrative hearing was held before the Sheriff’s Merit Board (board) to determine whether Promisco violated the county’s drug policy. Kenneth Kodama, Pharmatech’s laboratory manager, testified at the hearing as an expert witness. Based on the printout, Kodama expressed the opinion that Promisco’s sample contained marijuana residue. But Kodama did not demonstrate that the printout contained information reasonably relied upon by experts in the drug-testing field. The board admitted Kodama’s opinion. Later, the board decided that Promisco violated the county’s drug policy. Promisco filed a petition for review with the trial court. The trial court set aside the board’s decision. The county appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Hoffman, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
