Local Government Law

House Bill 4715

Topic: 
FOIA

(Bryant, R-Mt. Vernon; Radogno, R-Lemont) allows a person denied access to public records to file an action to enforce a binding opinion issued under section 9.5 of this Act.

It allows the court to impose an additional penalty of up to $1,000 for each day the violation continues if: the public body fails to comply with the court’s order after 30 days; the court’s order is not appealed or stayed; and the court does not grant the public body additional time to comply with a court order to disclose public records. Changes apply to actions filed on or after January 1, 2016.

A requester that files an action seeking to enforce a binding opinion will have a rebuttable presumption that the public body willfully and intentionally failed to comply with this Act if: the attorney general issues a binding opinion under section 9.5; the public body does not file for administrative review within 35 days after the binding opinion is served on the public body; and the public body does not comply with the binding opinion within 35 days after it is served on the public body.

This presumption may be rebutted by the public body showing that it is making a good-faith effort to comply with the binding opinion, but the compliance was not possible within the 35-day time frame.  This section applies to binding opinions of the attorney general requested or issued on or after January 1, 2016.

It has passed the Senate and back in the House for concurrence of Senate amendments. 

 

 

 

View Full Text of Legislation

Left Field Media LLC v. City of Chicago, Ill.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Left Field Media LLC v. City of Chicago, Ill.
Civil Court
First Amendment
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 15-3233
Decision Date: 
May 23, 2016
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying plaintiff’s motion for issuance of preliminary injunction in section 1983 action, alleging that defendant’s ordinance, which prohibited all peddling on streets adjacent to Wrigley Field, violated its First Amendment rights when plaintiff tried to sell its quarterly publication Chicago Baseball within prohibited space. Instant ordinance was content-neutral, since it regulated all sales alike, and defendant’s need to restrict peddling in stadium’s crowded immediate environs supplied rational basis for such ordinance. On remand, though, Dist. Ct. should consider in context of plaintiff’s request for permanent injunction plaintiff’s allegation that defendant discriminated in enforcement of said ordinance where police allowed Cubs’ employees to sell programs and logo-bearing merchandise in prohibited space, since ordinance applied to all adjacent sidewalks. Also, Dist. Ct. did not err in failing to issue preliminary injunction against enforcement of defendant’s Peddler’s License ordinance that required plaintiff to obtain licenses for individuals selling its publication since: (1) plaintiff failed to present evidence that showed how seriously such ordinance impacted plaintiff’s business; and (2) record was unclear whether police treated plaintiff’s publication as “newspaper,” which would exempt plaintiff from obtaining said license.

McGrath v. The City of Kankakee

McGrath v. The City of Kankakee
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Ordinances
Citation
Case Number: 
2016 IL App (3d) 140523
Decision Date: 
Monday, May 16, 2016
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Kankakee Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LYTTON

Plaintiff filed amended class action complaint alleging that City's impoundment ordinance was unconstitutional as it violated due process and was an unlawful attempt to use police powers to produce revenue. Court properly granted City's motion to dismiss with prejudice. Plaintiff has no standing to raise class action for violation of due process rights, as she failed to allege that signs were not posted when her car was impounded and thus failed to allege injury based on lack of notice. Version of impoundment ordinance in effect at time of Plaintiff's impoundment stated that a driver arrested for certain crimes shall be liable to City for "an administrative penalty" of $500.  The use of the word "penalty" establishes that the charge is a fine, not a fee. This fine is reasonably related to legitimate interest of deterring crime and thus is constitutional. (CARTER, concurring; McDADE, specially concurring.)

Peoria Journal Star v. Cty of Peoria

Peoria Journal Star v. Cty of Peoria
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
FOIA
Citation
Case Number: 
2016 IL App (3d) 140838
Decision Date: 
Monday, April 18, 2016
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Peoria Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
LYTTON

Plaintiffs filed FOIA request seeking all special reports written by a certain sergeant of City Police Department in 2013. City provided Plaintiffs with 1 report but refused to provide another, asserting it was a report of employee grievance which was factual basis for 2 internal disciplinary cases against 2 city police officers, and thus was exempt from disclosure under FOIA. Court correctly found that City failed to establish that report was exempt under FOIA. Report was created before any adjudication took place and existed independent of any adjudication.  That the report later led to disciplinary action against officers is insufficient to make it exempt under FOIA. (O'BRIEN and CARTER, concurring.)

Six Star Holdings, LLC v. City of Milwaukee

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Six Star Holdings, LLC v. City of Milwaukee
Civil Court
First Amendment
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 15-1608
Decision Date: 
April 13, 2016
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Affirmed

Dist. Ct. did not err in awarding plaintiff $435,000 in lost profits as remedy in its action alleging that defendant-City’s ordinance requiring certain licenses before plaintiff could operate strip club violated First Amendment, after Dist. Ct. found that said ordinance was unconstitutional. Ct. rejected defendant’s argument that plaintiff lacked standing under Susan B. Anthony List, 134 S.Ct. 2334, to seek compensatory damages, where plaintiff appropriately alleged that his company had intention to engage in conduct protected by First Amendment, but that such conduct was proscribed by defendant’s ordinance, that plaintiff’s company faced credible threat of prosecution, and that plaintiff would have opened adult entertainment club had defendant not had open-ended and unpredictable licensing regime. Ct. further rejected defendant’s claim that: (1) plaintiff could not seek compensatory damages because defendant never had opportunity to refrain from enforcing its ordinance; and (2) any financial harm that plaintiff experienced came from plaintiff’s decision to “self-censor,” rather than from defendant’s ordinance, where, as Ct. found, any voluntary action taken by plaintiff not to open its strip club was result of chilling effect of defendant’s ordinance.

Veterans Assistance Comm'n of Grundy County, Illinois v. County Board of Grundy County, Illinois

Veterans Assistance Comm'n of Grundy County, Illinois v. County Board of Grundy County, Illinois
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Veterans Act
Citation
Case Number: 
2016 IL App (3d) 130969
Decision Date: 
Friday, April 1, 2016
District: 
3d Dist.
Division/County: 
Grundy Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part and reversed in part; remanded with directions.
Justice: 
SCHMIDT

A second Veterans Assistance Commission (VAC 2) filed petition for rehearing, asking appellate court to reconsider, solely, portion of opinion finding that their VAC was invalid. Section 9 of Veterans Act requires every veterans' organization in a county to participate in a VAC.  Thus, VAC 2 was invalid because it lacked an inclusive coalition of veterans' organizations in Grundy County. Veterans Act clearly provides for only one VAC in each county, and to be valid and operational, it must be comprised of one delegate and one alternate from each of the duly-recognized veterans' organizations in the county. For a VAC to have an inclusive coalition, every veterans' organization in the county must agree to membership in a VAC, and the VAC must allow every member organization the opportunity to fully participate for a VAC to be valid under Section 9 of Veterans Act. (McDADE and WRIGHT, concurring.)

Blanchard v. Berrios

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Blanchard v. Berrios
Civil Court
Subpoenas
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
March 30, 2016
Docket Number: 
No. 120315
District: 
1st Dist.

This case present question as to whether certain Cook County ordinances allowing Office of Independent Inspector General (OIIG) to issue subpoenas directed at elected county officials violated Illinois Constitution, where OIIG issued subpoenas to County Assessor that commanded Assessor to produce all documents relating to homeowners exemptions that were granted to two specific addresses. Appellate Court, in affirming trial court, found that County had home rule authority to enact said ordinances and had ability to delegate its power to issue subpoenas to OIIG. In his petition for leave to appeal, defendant argued that said ordinances are unconstitutional, since they improperly make operations of independently elected county offices subordinate to directives of County and grant County power to investigate and sanction such offices for noncompliance with their official duties.

Senate Bill 2784

Topic: 
Lake County judicial facilities fee

(Link, D-Gurnee) amends the existing statute to allow Lake County to impose a "judicial facilities fee" not to exceed $30 against all defendants in traffic and criminal cases and against all civil litigants. The fee would be used to construct new judicial facilities. Only Will and Kane counties have this authority under existing law. Scheduled for hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee. 

View Full Text of Legislation

Senate Bill 2503

Topic: 
Judicial facilities fee

(Manar, D-Bunker Hill) allows all county boards to impose by ordinance a “judicial facilities fee” on all defendants convicted in traffic and criminal cases and all civil litigants. The fee may not be more than $30. It also expands the use of this fee from defraying new construction to include renovating existing judicial facilities. Under current law, only Will and Kane counties have authority to do impose this fee for new construction. Scheduled for hearing Tuesday in Senate Judiciary Committee. 

View Full Text of Legislation

Marshall v. The County of Cook

Marshall v. The County of Cook
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Fees
Citation
Case Number: 
2016 IL App (1st) 142864
Decision Date: 
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 2d Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
HYMAN

Plaintiff sued county, alleging county misused funds collected from litigation fees by failing to use them for purposes stated in enabling statutes. The enabling statutes do not provide for a private cause of action, and in absence of evidence of Plaintiff's personal liability to replentish public revenues depleted by alleged misuse, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring a taxpayer lawsuit.(PIERCE and SIMON, concurring.)