Local Government Law

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit challenging that red light violations issued under Chicago’s automated red light camera program were void because they did not contain the information required by the Chicago Municipal Code. The circuit court granted the city’s motion to dismiss, finding that the notices of violation substantially complied with the city code and the appellate court affirmed. (FITZGERALD SMITH and ELLIS, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act and sought civil penalties, attorney fees, and costs. The city produced some of the documents while the action was pending and the trial court subsequently granted judgment in favor of the city but awarded the plaintiff attorney fees and costs as the prevailing party. The appellate court reversed the order awarding attorney fees and costs, finding that the lawsuit was not necessary to obtain the documents where plaintiff had failed to provide the city with sufficient information to determine whether the documents were subject to disclosure under FOIA. (HARRIS and BRIDGES, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the City of Galena alleging that the city breached its ministerial duty to complete a zoning form and caused harm to the plaintiff when it lost a lease on a building. The circuit court granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss finding that the city was immune from liability under section 2-104 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act and that the plaintiff failed to state a prima facie case for negligence. The appellate court affirmed, finding that section 2-104 shielded the city from liability. (HARRIS and BRIDGES, concurring)

Plaintiffs were cited for violating a city ordinance that imposed weight limits on vehicles traveling on designated roadways. The citations were adjudicated through an administrative process and the hearing officer imposed fines against the plaintiffs, which were then affirmed by the trial court. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the city lacked jurisdiction to administratively adjudicate the violations. The appellate court reversed, finding that the vehicle ordinance could not be adjudicated administratively because the ordinance restricted the movement of vehicles. (DAUGHERITY and HETTEL, concurring)

Plaintiff filed an action for enforcement of FOIA seeking records from the Cook County hospital related to the treatment of “walk-in” gunshot victims and subsequent reporting of those admissions to local law enforcement. The county argued that the records were exempt from disclosure because they contained private information and protected personal health information. The supreme court held that the records were not exempt from disclosure so long as identifying information was removed prior to production. (ANNE M. BURKE, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, CARTER, and HOLDER WHITE, concurring and THEIS, dissenting)

Plaintiff filed a FOIA enforcement action seeking to receive records of certain 911 recordings. The defendant sheriff’s office argued that the records were exempt from disclosure because they contained confidential statements made by individuals who filed complaints or provided information to law enforcement and that the calls could not be altered or redacted to protect the speaker’s identity. The trial court held that the plaintiff was entitled to either an altered audio recording or a transcript of the 911 calls. The sheriff’s office appealed, and the appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part. The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the 911 calls were not exempt from disclosure and that the sheriff’s office was required to provide the calls using audio masking software. The appellate court reversed the trial court order requiring the sheriff’s office to provide written transcripts. (McDADE, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part, and DAUGHERITY, specially concurring in part and dissenting in part)

Plaintiff brought an action to foreclose special assessment liens on property owned by the defendant and, when defendant failed to appear, the trial court entered an order of default and judgment of foreclosure and sale. More than two years later the defendant filed a petition for relief from judgment pursuant to section 2-1401 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial court granted the petition and vacated the prior orders and the plaintiff appealed. The appellate court reversed, finding that the section 2-1401 petition was not filed within the two-year limitations period and that the limitations period was not subject to equitable tolling. (HUDSON, concurring and SCHOSTOK, specially concurring).

The sole issue on appeal was whether, in a county with a county executive form of government, the power to appoint a person to fill a vacancy in an elected county office resided with the county executive or the chair of the county board. The supreme court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, which found that under the plain terms of section 25-11 of the Election Code, the power of appointment resided with the chair of the county board. (THEIS, NEVILLE, MICHAEL J. BURKE, OVERSTREET, CARTER, and HOLDER WHITE, concurring)

Plaintiff as special administrator of an individual who died after a physical altercation with a police officer filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the officer, his employer, a hospital, and a physician. The village and the police officer filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that the officer was entitled to absolute immunity from civil suit under section 4-102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act and that the plaintiff had failed to show that the officer’s use of force was without legal justification and resulted from willful and wanton conduct under section 2-202. The trial court granted the motion under both sections and plaintiff appealed. The appellate reversed, finding that a reasonable person could conclude that the officer was not providing police protection service when the decedent was at the hospital and finding a question of fact existed as to whether the officer engaged in willful and wanton conduct. (ODEN JOHNSON and TAILOR, concurring)

Case of first impression regarding whether and how Illinois voters can recall their elected municipal officers. Village board adopted a resolution placing referenda on the ballot to establish a recall procedure and to recall the incumbent mayor. The circuit court held the referenda were invalid, but the order was stayed and village voters approved both referenda. The appellate court stayed the certification of the results pending its review. On review, the appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment and concluded that the referenda were improperly drafted and, as a result, were ineffective. (CUNNINGHAM and CONNORS, concurring)