Local Government Law

Plaintiffs appealed from a trial court order affirming the administrative imposition of fines for violations of local municipal zoning ordinances. The primary issue before the court was whether the plaintiffs' act of renting out their home as a short-term rental on VRBO.com constituted a permitted residential use under the applicable provisions of the zoning code. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the rental constituted an impermissible business use. (LAMPKIN and MARTIN, concurring)

Plaintiffs in consolidated actions filed complaints under the Freedom of Information Act seeking to compel production of documents related to their applications for firearm owners’ identification cards, including the plaintiffs’ FOID card applications and the ISP denial letters. The Illinois State Police had denied the FOIA requests on the basis that the documents were exempt from disclosure under section 7.4(v) of the Act. On motions for summary judgment, the circuit court held that ISP failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that the requested documents were exempt despite arguing it was prohibited from providing the documents pursuant to a permanent injunction. The appellate court affirmed, finding that by requesting their own records the plaintiffs had consented to the release of personal information and that the release of the documents was not barred by the injunction. (WELCH and WHARTON, concurring)

Trial court granted plaintiff’s Freedom of Information Act request seeking disclosure of an “index of tables and columns within each table” of the Citation Administration and Adjudication System (CANVAS). Defendant appealed, arguing the requested information was exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(o) of the Act, which excludes certain technical information when its disclosure would jeopardize the security of the system or its materials. The appellate court affirmed finding the trial court’s ruling was not against the manifest weight of the evidence where there was testimony that public disclosure of the information would not create a vulnerability in the system. (HYMAN and WALKER, concurring)

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment regarding amendments to the Peoria City Code defining the terms “injury” and “catastrophic injury” and adding the term “gainful work” to the portions of the code pertaining to line-of-duty disabilities. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the union. The appellate court affirmed. The Supreme Court also affirmed, finding that the terms in the city ordinance were preempted because they were inconsistent with the requirements of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act and, as a result, the ordinance was not a valid exercise of home rule authority. (ANNE M. BURKE, THEIS, NEVILLE, MICHAEL J. BURKE, OVERSTREET, and CARTER, concurring)

Circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 735 ILCS 5/2-615 finding that his claims were barred by both the ecclesiastical abstention doctrine and the ministerial exception. The appellate court affirmed finding that the first amendment barred secular adjudication of plaintiff’s claims because any judgment by the court would require the determination of whether a religious institution’s investigations into sexual assault allegations were timely and fair. (MCBRIDE and ELLIS, concurring.)

State's Attorney's Office filed complaint against former State Representative, seeking to recover hundreds of thousands of dollars in delinquent property taxes that Counts insists are owed on a leased office space that served as her local district office for about 20 years. Representative Davis was authorized to enter into the lease on behalf of State of Illinois. Any potential tax obligations that accrued under provisions of the lease are obligations of the State, and circuit court has no jurisdiction to hear a collection action against the State. Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over the dispute. Monetary judgment of just over $493,000 is vacated.(ODEN JOHNSON, concurring; PIERCE, dissenting.)

Plaintiff, a township road district, sued governor, seeking declaratory judgment that article 24 of Township Code, titled "Dissolution of Townships in McHenry County, violates the special legislation clause of the Illinois Constitution. Plaintiff established that application of the public interest exception is warranted, as this is a matter of public importance, and encompasses a question of election law, which is inherently a matter of public concern sufficient to invoke the public interest exception to prevent uncertainty in the electoral process.  It is possible that, before a challenge to the constitutionality of article 24 is resolved, a referendum to dissolve a township could be approved and that the township's assets could be transferred to the county. (ZENOFF and BIRKETT, concurring.)

County Board chair did not usurp the County Executive's appointment power by appointing persons to fill vacancies in the office of County Treasurer and 4 seats on the County Board. Election Code governs appointments to vacancies in elected offices and gives that power to the County Board chair.(CAVANAGH and STEIGMANN, concurring.)