Local Government Law

Dist. Ct. properly granted motion by defendants-members of Cook County Bd. of Review to dismiss on grounds of quasi-judicial immunity plaintiffs-taxpayers’ section 1983 actions alleging that defendants deprived them of their due process and equal protection rights, when defendants voted to reverse their prior reduction of plaintiffs’ property taxes based on newspaper reports that plaintiffs had allegedly obtained said reductions after giving campaign contributions and political support to local politician. Under Heyde, individual property tax board members were entitled to absolute immunity based on their quasi-judicial functions. Moreover, while defendant-Bd. itself was not entitled to such immunity, plaintiff’s lawsuit could not proceed in instant federal forum under Fair Assessment in Real Estate Ass’n, 454 US 100, since Dist. Ct. was required to abstain in lawsuits seeking damages under actions that challenge state and local tax collections, where, as here, plaintiff had adequate state remedy in terms of appeal procedure through PTAB.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-City’s motion for summary judgment in lawsuit alleging that defendant denied plaintiff due process by revoking site approval for retail sale of alcohol by third-party on plaintiff’s property after defendant had revoked third-party’s liquor license due to violation of City Code. Instant site approval was not protected property right for due process purposes since: (1) site approval was expressly conditioned on existence of liquor license for use on said premises; (2) third-party’s liquor license had been revoked by time of instant revocation of site approval; and (3) any interest that plaintiff had in site approval was “meager,” “transitory” and “uncertain,” since it was dependent on existence of liquor license. Fact that third-party’s liquor license was protected property for due process purposes did not require different result. Ct. further found that defendant provided plaintiff with sufficient due process where it notified plaintiff of hearing for liquor license revocation and allowed plaintiff’s counsel to cross-examine defendant’s witnesses during hearing.

Dist. Ct. did not err in issuing modified permanent injunction that precluded defendant from fully implementing 2009 ordinance (and subsequent 2012 ordinance) that required plaintiffs-private alarm companies to use certain aspects of fire alarm monitoring system set up by defendant. Record showed that wireless network set up by defendant did not comply with safety requirements contained in NFPA code and used inferior radio frequency, such that plaintiffs were entitled to use their own alarms and monitoring signals and to transmit said signals directly to entity for dispatching alarms to relevant responders. Moreover, Dist. Ct. did not err in requiring defendant to direct dispatching entity to alter its software to increase response times to plaintiffs’ alarm signals. Ct., though, struck provisions of injunction that required defendant to issue refunds on money collected from commercial entities under 2009 ordinance and directed defendant to adopt current version of NFPA code.