Motorists who had paid fines under city’s ordinance providing for the automated photographic enforcement of red traffic lights within the corporate limits brought declaratory-judgment action challenging legality of ordinance.
The Circuit Court dismissed action. Motorists appealed.
The Supreme Court held that motorists’ failure to challenge ordinance’s legality when given notices of violations meant that no justiciable controversy existed.
No justiciable controversy existed in declaratory-judgment action by motorists challenging legality of city’s ordinance providing for the automated photographic enforcement of red traffic lights within the corporate limits, and thus the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction; motorists had all paid fines under the ordinance rather than making a challenge to ordinance’s legality when they received their notices of violations, legislature and city had specifically vested the municipal court with original jurisdiction to adjudicate contested notices of violations under the ordinance and the local act authorizing the ordinance.