Local Government Law

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to obtain information relating to their Firearm Owner’s Identification cards after the Illinois State Police denied their request for documents under FOIA on the grounds that the requested information was exempt from disclosure. The trial court ordered ISP to produce the information and the appellate court affirmed, finding that the exemption contained an exception for information pertaining to the requester. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that there was no exception in the language of FOIA and that the requested information was exempt from disclosure. The court noted, however, that the plaintiffs had other avenues to obtain the desired information. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, HOLDER WHITE, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants seeking to invalidate an intragovernmental agreement between several municipalities by alleging that the agreement violated the Road Improvement Impact Fee Law. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant county and made findings pursuant to SCR 304(a). The appellate court affirmed, finding that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine did not apply. (BIRKETT and MULLEN, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to compel the production of documents under FOIA. The city tendered the requested documents after suit was filed. The trial court denied the request to produce documents as moot but still awarded plaintiff statutory attorneys fees. The city appealed form the award of attorneys fees. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the lawsuit was reasonably necessary to obtain the requested documents. (McDADE and BRENNAN, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act after the defendant refused to produce photographs taken by a county medical examiner in conjunction with a murder investigation on the basis that the photos were exempt from disclosure because their disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff but found that defendant did not act with willful or intentional misconduct. Plaintiff appealed, challenging the trial court’s finding that the county did not willfully or intentionally fail to comply with FOIA. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s requests for civil penalties because there was no evidence in the record that the defendant was motivated by bad faith. (LAVIN and HYMAN, concurring)

Plaintiff, a village municipality, filed a lawsuit against defendants alleging that they breached a redevelopment agreement the parties had entered into regarding a marina property. The trial court granted two motions for summary judgment which disposed of defendants counterclaims against the plaintiff as well as their third-party claims against village officials. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the trial court erred when it concluded that the defendants lacked an ownership interest in the property at issue. (ROCHFORD and MARTIN, concurring)

Plaintiff appealed from the circuit court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendant on plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the circuit court did not err when it concluded that the defendant’s search for missing third-party reports was adequate and consistent with FOIA and that public bodies are not required to make a demand on a third-party who is delinquent or otherwise non-compliant with its obligation to submit reports. The appellate court further found that the circuit court properly granted summary judgment for defendant relating to a request for raw data based on an undisputed affidavit stating that the defendant did not keep such data. (C.A. WALKER and ODEN JOHNSON, concurring and specially concurring)

Plaintiff filed a three-count complaint against defendant for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and equitable estoppel. The trial court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss and plaintiff appealed, arguing, among other things, that amendments to the Illinois Gambling Act did not render a redevelopment agreement between the parties void. The appellate court disagreed and affirmed, finding that the city lost the authority to enter into the redevelopment agreement and that estoppel was not available because the agreement was void. (HUTCHINSON and SCHOSTOK, concurring)