Local Government Law

Main issue on appeal was whether entities that held valid public way use permits for vault space underneath a public sidewalk had a duty of care to a pedestrian who was injured when she tripped and fell on an uneven portion of the sidewalk. The appellate court found that the scope of duty was governed by the terms of the permit, which created a contractual obligation on behalf of the permit holder to comply with the Municipal Code and to maintain the sidewalk above the vault. The appellate court reversed the trial court orders to the contrary and remanded for further proceedings, including the determination of whether the parties breached their duty of care. (FITZGERALD SMITH and COBBS, concurring)

Personal injury case against multiple defendants arising out of injuries plaintiff sustained when she slipped and fell on a puddle of water leaking from a water cooler inside a commercial building that was occupied by a school. The circuit court granted motions to dismiss filed by the school district defendants on the basis that they were immune under section 2-105 of the Local Government and Governmental Tort Immunity Act. The appellate court reversed, finding that section 2-105 was directed only toward local public entities whose function is to conduct formal health and safety inspections of properties other than their own and that the defendants failed to meet their burden of proving they were immune from plaintiff’s claims of negligence arising out of their alleged failure to inspect the water cooler prior to using it at a school function. (LAMPKIN and MARTIN, concurring)

Plaintiff brought suit seeking disclosure of documents related to an officer-involved fatal shooting pursuant to FOIA. The circuit court granted plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment holding that the confidentiality provisions of the Juvenile Court Act pertaining to law enforcement records of minors did not apply to deceased minors. The CPD appealed and the appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part, finding that the circuit court’s conclusion that FOIA’s privacy provisions did not apply “at all” to law enforcement records of deceased minors was incorrect and, as a result, there remained a material issue of fact with respect to whether any of the requested records may be disclosed. The appellate court remanded the matter to the circuit court to conduct further proceedings to determine whether any records may be disclosed without violating the confidentiality provisions applicable to the law enforcement records of minors. (REYES and LAMPKIN, concurring)

Matter arising from the clerk of McHenry County’s refusal to place a proposition to dissolve the McHenry Township on the November 2020 general election ballot by finding that it violated the statutory prohibition against placing “the same proposition” on the ballot within 23 months because a proposition to dissolve the township was rejected by voters in the March 2020 primary election. The plaintiff filed for a writ of mandamus and the circuit court dismissed the complaint pursuant to section 2-619 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appellate court reversed, holding that the clerk lacked the statutory authority to refuse to place the referendum on the ballot and was obligated to perform the ministerial act of placing the proposition on the ballot. While on appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court, the township withdrew its brief and aligned with the county in its opposition to the appellate court opinion. Because this did not resolve the litigation and because the issue, despite being moot, could arise again in the future the Illinois Supreme Court addressed the arguments raised by defendants and affirmed the appellate court, finding that the clerk was not authorized by the Election Code to prohibit the proposition from appearing on the ballot on the grounds that it violated section 28-7 of the Election Code. The court did not determine whether the proposition actually violated section 28-7. (ANNE M. BURKE, GARMAN, THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET and CARTER, concurring)

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.)