Local Government Law

Plaintiff filed complaint alleging that portions of city ordinance, prohibiting food trucks from parking within 200 feet of the entrance of a ground-floor restaurant and requiring food truck owners to permanently install a GPS device on their vehicles, are constitutionally invalid. City has a legitimate governmental interest in encouraging long-term stability and economic growth of its neighborhoods and ordinance helps promote brick-and-mortar restaurants, which is rationally related to this legitimate interest. The GPS requirement does not effect a search of food truck, and does not require food trucks to make the location data transmitted to their service provider accessible to the public.  It provides City with a means of obtaining a food truck's location to effectuate inspections. City has a legitimate interest in having a reliable means of locating a food truck in the event of a public health emergency. (KARMEIER, THOMAS, KILBRIDE, GARMAN, THEIS, and NEVILLE, concurring.)

Court properly ruled that restaurant was not entitled to any portion of a condemnation award that its landlord received relating to IDOT's partial taking of the leased premises. Under the plain language of the lease's condemnation clause, restaurant was entitled to a rent adjustment relating to the portion of the premises partially taken, but not a portion of the condemnation award. (LAVIN and PUCINSKI, concurring.)

Court dismissed with prejudice Plaintiffs' 2nd amended complaint against Village. Plaintiffs obtained a permit from Village ot build a "garage, patio, driveway" on their property, and erected a metal pole barn in conformance with permit. Five years later, County sued Plaintiffs for violation of a County ordinance, alleging they built structure in a regulatory flood-prone area without a stormwater management permit issued by County. Plaintiffs sued Village, alleging breach of contract and violation of Consumer Fraud Act, claiming that Village had a duty to disclose County's permit requirement when Plaintiffs applied for building permit from Village. A building permit issued by a municipality does not create a contract between municipality and the permittee. Consumer Fraud Act does not apply to a transaction involving a municipality's regulatory and legal powers. Even if Act were to apply, Complaint is barred by statute of limitations, as it was not filed within 3 years after cause of action accrued. (BIRKETT and BURKE, concurring.)

Petitioner, a city police officer, filed nominating papers to have his name placed on the ballot as a candidate for election to office of alderman. Objector's petition argued that Petitioner's statement, on his sworn statement of candidacy, that he was legally qualified to hold the office sought was false. Municipal Officers Electoral Board concluded that office of alderman was incompatible with service as a city police officer, and that Petitioner was not qualified to run for or hold office of alderman. The doctrine of incompatibility is not a basis upon which an electoral board may find that a candidate is not "qualified" for the office sought, for purposes of compliance with section 10-5 of the Election Code. (LAVIN and ELLIS, concurring.)

Plaintiff sued City for injuries sustained when she tripped and fell into a 5-foot-long pothole when she was returning to her parked car. A portion of her car extended into area with a yellow-painted line indicating a no parking zone due to nearby fire hydrant. Court properly granted summary judgment for City, as Plaintiff was not an intended and permitted user of the street area where she fell. (DELORT, concurring; HARRIS, dissenting.)

Defendant KH entered into annexation agreement with City as to 300-acre parcel within City limits that Defendant intended to develop into subdivision. Defendant went bankrupt before completing the public improvements required by annexation agreement. Before and during bankruptcy proceeding, 2 other Defendants (TRG and WRH) purchased lots in subdivision from Defendant KH. City sufficiently alleged that TRG and WRH were successor developers under Annexation Agreement, and that they breached Agreement by failing to finish public improvements.Complaints adequately alleged that, when WRH acquired KH's interest in subdivision, a surety relationship arose by operation of law, making WRH the principal obligor and thus liable to Fidelity, as surety. Fidelity properly pled, as a basis for relief, implied promise by KH and its successors to reimburse Fidelity for its losses. (HUTCHINSON and ZENOFF, concurring.)

City sought compensation for extrication services performed for benefit of Defendant LLCV, a nonresident. Intent of legislature, in allowing a municipality to seek reimbursement for firefighting services provided to nonresidents, under Section 11-6-1.1 of Municipal Code, was to eliminate the taxpayer's burden for such services. The most reasonable interpretation of "firefighting services" is all services renderedd by the municipality's fire department. (CHAPMAN and CATES, concurring.)