of State, and is aimed specifically vene the public policy of this State, as expressed in the ° ° ° Act.” However, that only says that that statute was allegedly violated, which relates to the existence of a particular claim, not to whether a private action is statutorily implied. 3 In Sawyer, our Supreme Court held that federal law governed the federal statutory-implication issue, and cited Texas Industries, Inc. v. Radcliff Materials, Inc. (1981), 451 U.S. 630 and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions going back to Cort v. Ash (1975), 422 U.S. 66, which articulated a 4-factor federal test that included “indication of legislative intent to create or deny such a remedy.” (See also, Lehmann v. Arnold (4th Dist. 1985), 137 Ill. App. 3d 412, 484 N.E.2d 473, 481, 91 Ill. Dec. 914, 922) (<HOLDING>), the only Ilhnois case that has come to our
recognizing implied private action under the plat act rejecting implied private action under the national flood insurance act of 1968 recognizing implied private action under the school code as to chapter 1 funds recognizing implied private action under the collection agency act recognizing implied private action under federal safety appliance act recognizing implied private action under the xray retention act