Local Government Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that a Barrington Hills zoning ordinance was unconstitutional because it was not adopted for the public welfare, but rather to benefit a single individual by legalizing an existing commercial horse boarding facility. The trial court found that the ordinance reflected a community debate and that it satisfied rational-basis scrutiny and plaintiff appealed. The appellate court affirmed by Rule 23 order, finding that the circuit court applied the proper standard for determining the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance and that the circuit court’s factual findings were not against the manifest weight of the evidence. (McBRIDE and HOWSE, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, seeking education records related to the defendant’s student graduation rate. The defendant had denied to turn over the records on the basis that they were exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(a) of FOIA and under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. The circuit court disagreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff and defendant appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded, instructing the circuit court to conduct an in camera inspection of the records and to oversee the redaction of the records to remove any personally identifiable information from the requested education records. (MITCHELL and MIKVA, concurring)

Plaintiff, a registered voter, filed a lawsuit challenging changes made to a village ethics board through the referendum process, which called for the election of ethics board members rather than their appointment by the village board of trustees. Plaintiff argued that the referendum was not authorized by the Illinois Constitution. The appellate court agreed and affirmed the judgment of the circuit court, explaining that the state constitution did not authorize the changes made by the referendum because the ethics board members did not meet the definition of an “officer” for the purpose of elected office. (McBRIDE and COBBS, concurring)

Plaintiff, a former firefighter who was awarded a line-of-duty disability pension, filed a legal action under section 10 of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act seeking reimbursement for health insurance premiums he paid after he was initially denied pension benefits. The trial court granted summary judgment in plaintiff’s favor and the defendant appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding the trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff’s eligibility for benefits commenced on the date the pension fund initially denied his application for line-of-duty benefits and, further, that the trial court correctly concluded that plaintiff did not otherwise have access to health insurance benefits within the meaning of the Act. (FITZGERALD SMITH and PUCINSKI, concurring)