Local Government Law

Inspector General has authority to retain private counsel and file suit against City's Corporation Counsel, to seek to compel production of documents for ints investigation of a sole-source contract which City awarded to a former City employee; Corporation Counsel claimed that documents were protected by attorney-client privilege. (McBRIDE, concurring; CAHILL, dissenting.)

(Court opinion corrected 4/20/11.) Plaintiff police officer was injured while entering his unmarked police vehicle during patrol for gang activity; car unexpectedly moved forward and ran over his foot. Court entered judgment in favor of officer for an on-duty disability pension benefit, reversing Police Pension Fund's decision. Police Pension Fund's decision was not clearly erroneous because at time of injury, officer was not responding to a call, and he had yet to resume patrol, and he was attempting to enter rear seat of unmarked squad car in station's parking lot, moving items off the seat. This injury did not involve a "special risk" arising from his being a police officer, but an ordinary risk that all citizens assume when entering vehicle or moving items off seat of vehicle. (CONNORS, concurring; CUNNINGHAM, dissenting.)

(Court opinion corrected 3/28/11.) City police officer closed bar in early morning hours for failure to have a valid license. Later that same day bar sued City, Liquor Control Commission, and Police Department. Court granted TRO and awarded damages incurred as a result of closing of bar, and three months later entered order dismissing complaint. Plaintiff was entitled to automatic stay, as Section 7-9 of Liquor Control Act allowing stay applies to an order having the effect of revocation and to denial of renewal application. Defendant should have been provided notice and opportunity to address the other issues raised by complaint, to make arguments for limiting damages including per Tort Immunity Act. (WELCH and DONOVAN, concurring.)

Plaintiffs, all owners of property on East Randolph Street in Chicago, sued numerous Defendants, including Park District, City, City's Plan Commission, and aldermen, challenging City Council's decision to approve zoning amendment to allow construction of children's museum and a new park district field house facility on northeast corner of Grant Park, within 250 feet of Plaintiffs' property. Court properly dismissed complaint, as Section 11-13-25(a) of Municipal Code does not afford private property owners an independent cause of action to challenge amendment to zoning ordinance; and because Plaintiffs failed to comply with notice provisions of Section 11-13-8 of Municipal Code. (J. GORDON and HOWSE, concurring.)

(Court opinion of 1/13/11 modified upon denial of rehearing.) Illinois State Board of Elections dismissed Complaint which contained allegations of various violations of Election Code in reporting loans and as to expenditures and contributions. Board's written order dismissed Complaint, finding that it was not filed on justifiable grounds, and matter did not proceed to public hearing. Record is unclear which of the reports filed by Respondents are accurate as to identity of parties that made loans in question, and thus allegation of false reporting of the identity of parties that loaned large sum of money to Defendant "Gorman Good Government Group" has some basis in fact and law, and Complaint therefore appears to have been filed on justifiable grounds. (HOFFMAN and LAVIN, concurring.)

Court properly granted summary judgment to People on its quo warranto complaint, ousting Defendant from three public offices (park district commissioner, alderman, and school board member). Conflicting statutory duties of three offices rendered offices incompatible, and Defendant's service of more than three years in the three offices, and election to offices by voters, did not prevent ouster on basis of incompatibility. Although individual taxpayer originally filed suit, court properly allowed State to intervene as matter of right, and to file amended complaint to correct deficiencies in initial complaint. (QUINN and NEVILLE, concurring.)

Court affirmed decision of Municipal Electoral Board to invalidate nomination papers filed by new political party and its slate of candidates for municipal election, finding nomination papers invalid as the petition sheets identified "MVP Party" yet statements of candidacy were on forms with the heading "nonpartisan". As "nonpartisan" did not appear on petition sheets, and as petition sheets informed signers of name of party, candidates should have been allowed place on ballot. Doctrine of laches inapplicable, as Petitioners filed notice of appeal eight days after circuit court's decision, and motion for expedited appeal was granted; and no prejudice resulted from any delay, as even if Petitioners had filed notice of appeal day after circuit court decision, ballots would still have had to be reprinted. (GARCIA and McBRIDE, concurring.

Court properly granted preliminary injunction in favor of Defendants county, county board, and board members, in controversery over whether Circuit Clerk may use monies in "special funds" to pay personnel costs. County showed that it had a clearly ascertained right in need of protection, with no adequate remedy at law, and showed a likelihood of success on the merits. County raised a fair question about the Clerk's obligation to operate her office within budgetary appropriations, and a fair question that she is not paying enough of her office expenses out of the special funds. Plain language of statutes indicates that personnel costs, including compensation of data entry personnel, are properly paid from special funds, with Clerk having discretion as to allocation of funds to various tasks. (McLAREN and HUTCHINSON, concurring.)