Local Government Law

Plaintiff filed suit alleging that Defendant, a former employee, breached restrictive covenant by opening a dance studio within 25 miles of Plaintiff's facility and soliciting students and/or teachers via customer list. Employment-based restrictive covenants lasting "not less than" 5 and "not less than" 3 years mean 5 and 3 years (and not a day less) respectively. Court is unable to determine whether employment-based restrictive covenants lasting 3 and 5 years are reasonable in their temporal scope. (CARTER and HOLDRIDGE, concurring.)

Over Plaintiff's objection, City Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) granted a 2.5-inch reduction to the standard 24-inch setback required between the side of Plaintiff's home and the new home next door. Plaintiff filed complaint for judicial review of ZBA's decision. Court erred in dismissing complaint on grounds that caption of her summons listed ZBA and did not expressly include owner of home next door to Plaintiff. Format and contents of summons adequately notified owner of home of pending administrative review action and her opportunity to respond and vested circuit court with personal jurisdiction over her. Caption included "et al.," in lieu of owner's actual name, but it was followed by clear statement on face of summons that owner was a "defendant" to action.(GORDON and REYES, concurring.)

Court erred in granting summary judgment for Plaintiff on his claim under Illinois Municipal Code, permanently enjoining Defendants from storing or servicing their business-related vehicles and equipment and from otherwise engaging in business-related activity on their property. Before annexation the Village knew that property was not used for residential purposes and that it would not conform to the R-1-A zoning regulations. Village intended to annex the property 'as-is", as a prior legal nonconforming use, and did not intend to require Defendant owners to restrict, change, or discontinue commercial use of their property.Village had a long-standing practice to annex all nonconforming properties "as-is." Defendants' use of property is not in violation of Village's ordinances. (MIKVA and HARRIS, concurring.)

Highway commissioner for township vacated 0.45 miles of a one-lane road. Circuit court upheld commissioner's decision. Highway Code requires that every order entered shall contain an express finding that alteration or vacation of township or district road will be in public and economic interest and will deprive residents or owners of proximate land of reasonable access elsewhere. Purported substantial economic benefit to public that commissioner concluded will occur from closing the road  is purely hypothetical unless township has approved finite plans for improvements, and is contrary to manifest weight of evidence. No evidence in record supported this conclusion. (O'BRIEN, specially concurring; SCHMIDT, dissenting.)

Plaintiff sought, under FOIA, an electronic copy of all publicly disclosable data within Township's property-assessment software system, in its native file format. Township provided certain data to Plaintiff, but Plaintiff filed complaint alleging that data was not provided in format he had requested. Plaintiff concedes that data Township provided to him two days after he filed complaint was fully responsive to his FOIA request. Thus, court properly dismissed complaint as moot, as there is no controversy as to data requested. Court properly imposed sanctions against Plaintiff for filing a frivolous complaint. (ZENOFF and SCHOSTOK, concurring.)