Local Government Law

Plaintiff filed a motion for a temporary restraining order against the defendant seeking an order requiring the city to restore his water service. The trial court denied the motion and plaintiff appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded with instructions to enter a TRO, finding that the trial court incorrectly denied the TRO on the basis that plaintiff had an adequate remedy at law because the “adequate remedy” was not as clear, complete, or as practical and efficient as restoring the water service while the parties litigated the underlying merits of the case. (STEIGMANN and CAVANAGH, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a four-count complaint against the defendants challenging the validity of the city’s ordinances related to rental properties. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint and plaintiffs appealed. The appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, finding that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ facial challenges to the ordinance but that the trial court erred when it dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim that the ordinance was unconstitutional as applied. The court additionally held that under the Tort Immunity Act, the plaintiffs were limited to seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. (JORGENSEN and BIRKETT, concurring)

Plaintiff appealed from the trial court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the plaintiff’s complaint seeking to enforce compliance with a request for records under the Freedom of Information Act. Plaintiff had sought documents relating to a fatal hit-and-run collision and the defendants had denied the request under several provisions of the law, including that the requested body camera video footage was not subject to disclosure and that additional records were exempt because their disclosure would interfere with a pending or anticipated law enforcement proceeding. On appeal, plaintiff argued that the affidavit of a police officer was not sufficient to establish that disclosure of the records would interfere with law enforcement proceedings. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the defendants sufficiently demonstrated through the affidavit that the records were exempt from disclosure in their entirety and that defendants had no duty to provide redacted versions of the documents. (LAVIN and COBBS, concurring)

Plaintiff sought administrative review of a decision of the Board of Trustees of the Bolingbrook Police Pension Fund which held that compensation for plaintiff’s police pension and retiree insurance contributions did not constitute pensionable benefits under the Illinois Pension Code. The circuit court reversed the board’s decision and the board appealed. The appellate court affirmed the circuit court, finding that the pension and retiree insurance pick-up payments that plaintiff received were pensionable salary under the Illinois Pension Code. (BRENNAN and PETERSON, concurring)