Local Government Law

Park District's Board of Commissioners approved 2 items on agenda of a regularly scheduled meeting. Court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's complaint, filed the next day, alleging that Board failed to comply with Open Meetings Act in providing insufficient explanation ("public recital") before voting to approval those 2 agenda items. Open Meetings Act requires that final actions by Board be preceded by a "public recital" of nature of matter being considered to inform public of business being conducted. Plaintiff's allegations were sufficient to state a violation of the Act. Introduction of agenda items at Board meeting were insufficient to inform public of any of key terms of lease agreement or covenants mentioned in agenda for those 2 agenda items. (HARRIS and APPLETON, concurring.)

Court entered judgment finding Defendant, owner of multiple-unit apartment building, guilty of failure to abate violations of City's ordinance code and unlawful occupancy of a rental unit. Court properly entered default judgment against Defendant as to liability, as defendant failed to appear in person at 2 consecutive hearings, and nothing in record indicates Defendant's appearance from those hearings had been excused. Court erred in entering fines in amount of $239,240 without requiring Plaintiff to prove up damages. Defendant was properly defaulted as to existence of violations contained within complaint, but Plaintiff never proved up duration of defaulted violations. Remanded for limited hearing on issue of fines, where Defendant can be heard on matter of damages. (McDADE, concurring; CARTER, dissenting.)

Section 3-7002 of the Counties Code does not authorize Cook County Sheriff either explicitly or by implication to appoint a person to Merit Board for less than a 6-year term. Decision of Merit Board was void because Merit Board was illegally constituted at time of 10/30/13 decision to terminate Plaintiff's employment. (GORDON and LAMPKIN, concurring.)

Court granted Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, to recover damages for alleged losses from manner in which former County Treasurer conducted property tax sale auctions from 2005 through 2008.As Plaintiffs identified issues common to the class, court did not abuse its discretion or consider impermissible legal criteria when it found that a common issue of law or fact existed. As calculation of actual damages would be too individualized to be handled as part of class action, court abused its discretion in finding that individual issues as to actual damages would not predominate over common issues. It was not abuse of court's discretion to certify a class for liability purposes only, as common issues predominate over individual concerns involving liability. Court abused its discretion in certifying a class that included the sale in error claim against Madison County and former Madison County Treasurer and money had and received claim against Madison County.  (SCHWARM and CHAPMAN, concurring.)

Plaintiffs, joint owners of house rented to separate tenants on 2 floors as a legal nonconforming use, filed petition to allow continued use of property as a multifamily residence. City Council denied petition, declaring that nonconforming use had been discontinued (as property remained vacant for more than a year, after property became uninhabitable due to water damage), and restricted use of building to single-family residence. Plaintiffs filed complaint against Zoning Commission, City Council, and City, under Section 11-13-25 of Municipal Code.  That Section of Municipal Code does not create a private right of action by a landowner against a municipality to challenge zoning decisions.(HUTCHINSON and BURKE, concurring.)

(Court order corrected 7/18/16.) Court entered preliminary injunctions in favor of Plaintiff Fraternal Order of Police, which enjoin Defendants from releasing certain information contained in records ("CRs") generated by police oversight agencies' investigations of citizen complaints of alleged police misconduct. Plaintiff failed to raise fair questions as to existence of rights claimed under Section 8.4 of parties' collective bargaining agreement and under Section 8 of Illinois Personnel Record Review Act, and thus has not shown any likelihood of success on the merits. CR files and related information are subject to disclosure under FOIA in absence of applicable exemption. Court was without legal basis to enjoin Defendants from releasing requested records.in aid of arbitrations. Record Review Act does not provide basis to withhold CR related information requested under FOIA.Amendment to Section 11 of Record Review Act exempts only "performance evaluations" from FOIA disclosure. (ROCHFORD and DELORT, concurring.)