Local Government Law

Plaintiff filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a finding that a purchase and sale agreement between the defendant and a private developer was void because it did not follow state law, that the ordinance approving zoning changes to the property violated the plaintiffs’ procedural and substantive due process rights, and that certain meetings related to the proposed sale and development of the property violated the Open Meetings Act. The trial court dismissed the complaint and plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court affirmed, finding that village had authority as a home rule unit to enter into a purchase and sale agreement and that this did not conflict with the provisions of the Illinois Municipal Code relating to the sale of surplus property, that proper notice was provided of the proposed zoning changes, and that the relief requested by the plaintiffs to void actions taking during the public meetings was not available because the meetings were open and not closed. (LAMPKIN and MARTIN, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking to enforce a records request issued under the Freedom of Information Act. The City of Chicago had refused to produce the requested documents under two exemptions contained within the Act. At issue on appeal was whether the circuit court could account for changed circumstances when determining whether the withholding of public information was proper. The Supreme Court adopted a “time-of-request” approach and held that unless the FOIA exemption stated otherwise, the circuit court should review the withholding of information under the circumstances as they existed when the public body made its decision. (ANNE M. BURKE, THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, and CARTER, concurring. HOLDER WHITE took no part in the decision.)

Plaintiff filed suit against the City of Chicago to challenge a zoning ordinance that changed the types of establishments allowed in a building owned by the plaintiff as well as claims based on the conduct of the local city council alderman. The circuit court dismissed plaintiff’s complaint in its entirety and with prejudice under section 2-619 by finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim for substantive due process or equal protection violations and that the allegations of the complaint, which referenced noise levels and drug and alcohol abuse at the subject property, satisfied the rational basis test. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the plain language of section 2-201 of the Local Government and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act provided absolute immunity to the city. The Supreme Court also affirmed, but found that the alderman was immune because his conduct reflected a determination of policy and the exercise of discretion and because he was not liable due to discretionary immunity, the City also was not liable. (THEIS, NEVILLE, MICHAEL J. BURKE, and CARTER, concurring. ANNE M. BURKE and HOLDER WHITE took no part in the decision.)

Plaintiff, a reporter for an independent news organization, alleged that the City of Chicago Police Department failed to comply with a FOIA request to produce documents and videos relating to a 2018 homicide. The police department had claimed that certain records were exempt from disclosure under sections 7(1)(d)(i) and (vii) of the Act. The trial court ruled in favor of the police department, finding that an investigator's affidavit provided clear and convincing evidence that disclosure of the records would interfere with an ongoing investigation. Plaintiff appealed and the appellate court affirmed. (McBRIDE and BURKE, concurring)

Plaintiff appeals the trial court’s order dismissing its complaint for DUI against the defendant for improper venue. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, finding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal because the city failed to establish that the supreme court intended to provide municipal prosecutors with the power to initiate interlocutory appeals under SCR 604(a) and that the city's home rule status did not alter the legal analysis. (BRIDGES and HUDSON concurring)

Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging a violation of FOIA seeking a declaration that defendants violated FOIA, an order mandating production of the requested records, attorneys fees, and civil penalties. Defendants produced the documents during litigation. The trial court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, finding that the city acted reasonably. Plaintiff appealed arguing, in part, that the trial court erred when it denied his request for attorney's fees. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court erred when it did not hear arguments on the reasonableness of plaintiff’s request for attorneys fees. (TURNER and HARRIS, concurring).

Plaintiff filed a complaint in the circuit court seeking administrative review of a decision to terminate his employment as a correctional officer. Plaintiff also sought mandamus relief to compel the Sheriff to use the Cook County State’s Attorney as his attorney in the proceedings. The trial court dismissed the mandamus count of the complaint with prejudice and entered an order pursuant to SCR 304. The appellate court affirmed finding that plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because section 3-9005(a) of the Counties Code does not establish a clear duty on the part of the Sheriff to use the State’s Attorney to prosecute proceedings before the Merit Board. (LAVIN and COBBS, concurring)