(Althoff, R-Crystal Lake; Martwick, D-Chicago) provides that the notice of tax lien must also include the county or counties where the real property of the debtor to which the lien will attach is located. Provides that a tax lien that is filed in the registry must be attached to all of the existing and after-acquired real and personal property of the debtor. Passed both chambers.
(Breen, R-Lombard; Curran, R-Woodridge) amends the Counties Code, the Municipal Code, and the Township Code affecting provisions regarding building or structure zoning violations. Prohibits any suit against a unit of government or its officials for any act relating to zoning administration, enforcement, or implementation or any ordinance, resolution, or other zoning regulation. Makes an exception for property owned by the unit of government.
Dist.Ct. did not err in dismissing as moot plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief to prohibit defendant-Village from enforcing its ordinance that required plaintiff to seek special-use permit to operate strip club that sold alcohol, where plaintiff argued that said ordinance violated its First Amendment rights. Plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief was moot, where some months after defendant had denied plaintiff’s special use permit application, Illinois statute (65 ILCS 5/11-5-1.5) was enacted that would have precluded plaintiff from operating on subject property because it was within 1,000 feet of cemetery, school park, and/or church. As such plaintiff could not obtain any relief, even if it had prevailed in its federal constitutional challenge to defendant’s zoning ordinance. Ct. also rejected plaintiff’s argument that law of case doctrine precluded Dist. Ct. from considering applicability of mootness doctrine, even though different Dist. Ct. judge found that plaintiff had “vested right” with respect to setback provision of defendant’s adult-use ordinance, and Ct. further rejected plaintiff’s claim that it had vested right to operate strip club, because at time plaintiff had applied for special-use permit, defendant’s ordinance expressly forbade plaintiff from operating proposed strip club.
Plaintiff filed suit for injunctive relief after Joliet PD denied request under FOIA, seeking disciplinary history for employee. The prohibition on disclosure of disciplinary records more than 4 years old, in Section 8 of Personnel Record Review Act, is applicable to FOIA requests and such records are exempt from FOIA. The specific language of FOIA must take precedence over general construction guidance in Section 11 of the Review Act. (CARTER and WRIGHT, concurring.)
Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment in favor of defendants-city officials in plaintiff-city alderman’s action seeking injunction against application of state law that limited number of proposed referenda to three that could appear on any one ballot, as well as order either removing from ballot or stopping implementation of term-limit referenda that effectively precluded plaintiff from seeking fourth term as alderman because he had already reached number of permissible terms. While plaintiff argued that state law creating instant “Rule of Three” limitation on number of referenda violated his First Amendment rights because it precluded him from asking voters to support his proposed fourth referenda seeking to preclude City’s mayor from seeking fourth term, Ct. of Appeals found no First Amendment violation since there is no constitutional right to place referenda on ballot, and ballot is not otherwise public forum for advocating policy. Also, Rule of Three is rationally related to legitimate state objective in simplifying ballot. Ct. also rejected plaintiff’s related class-of-one equal protection claim with respect to defendant’s ordinance limiting terms of alderman, since: (1) ordinance covered all individuals who served beyond stated term limit; (2) plaintiff did not deny that term-limit rules in general are supported by rational basis; and (3) judicial intervention to essentially overturn political practices that are valid in general but bear especially hard consequence for one politician would be inappropriate.
(Castro, D-Elgin; Mah, D-Chicago) prohibits a landlord from (1) threatening to disclose or disclosing information regarding the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant to any person with the intent of harassing or intimidating the tenant for exercising his or her rights; or (2) bring an action to recover possession of a dwelling unit based solely or in part on the immigration or citizenship status of a tenant. A landlord is not liable for complying with the law or a court order. A similar affirmative defense is created as a defense to an eviction action. Passed both chambers.
(Andersson, R-Geneva; Mulroe, D-Chicago) creates the Criminal and Traffic Assessment Act. The Act would standardize court-filing fees and fines into 13 schedules of potential assessments for criminal and traffic offenses, and four schedules for civil court cases, which are divided by the kind of offense or case. The Act also caps the maximum amount of money that can be assessed under each schedule and for various services or filings within the court process. The money collected under these assessment schedules would then be distributed at the state, county, and local levels for officials to decide how to best allocate their portion for maintaining the courts. House Bill 4594 would also provide a sliding-scale waiver for some civil litigants and criminal defendants depending on their income relative to the federal poverty level. House Bill 544 (Mulroe, D-Chicago; Andersson, R-Geneva) is a trailer bill to resolve technical concerns. Both bills passed both chambers.
(Tracy, R-Quincy; Keith Wheeler, R-North Aurora) creates authorization for and requirements to follow using email as a method of service under this Act. Passed both chambers.
(Mulroe, D-Chicago; Arroyo, D-Chicago) authorizes a retainage of 10% of the payment may be withheld from a payment under a construction contract before the completion of 50% of the contract. After 50% of the contract is completed, the amount of retainage for any later payment may not exceed 5%. Passed both chambers.