Clarke v. Bettenhausen (1921), 296 Ill. 373, 376, 129 N.E. 803; but see Hester v. Kamykowski (1958), 13 Ill. 2d 481, 489, 150 N.E.2d 196 (taking exception to Browning, holding that a petition for judicial review could name multiple defendants seeking different offices where the issues and judgment would be identical). Although petitioner sought review of four separate Board deci sions within a single pleading, the pleading includes five separate counts. Each count seeks separate review of a decision related to each candidate. The five counts are viewed as separate and distinct causes of action (see 735 ILCS 5/2 — 603, 2 — 613 (West 1994)), based upon similar factual allegations and the same issues. (See Ras v. Allan Anthony Electric Corp. (1965), 55 Ill. App. 2d 176, 204 N.E.2d 797 (<HOLDING>).) If originally filed as separate actions, it
holding that earlier suits different legal theory did not save the later action from the res judicata bar because the central factual issues are identical holding that only courts in the county where property was situated had jurisdiction to hear an action concerning the property holding the court had jurisdiction to hear a threecount complaint premised upon three separate causes of action naming three separate defendants where the counts involved identical factual allegations and legal issues holding the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear an appeal where the circuit court had the power to remand the agency decision for further proceedings holding that the appellate court had jurisdiction to hear the interlocutory appeal on a restraining order and the district court retained jurisdiction to proceed with the trial