Local Government Law

(Modified Upon Denial of Rehearing filed 4/22/10.) City had rezoned property from multifamily to single family, and had given notice by publication, in strict compliance with statutory notice requirements of Section 11-13-2 of Illinois Municipal Code. Notice provision was unconstitutional as applied to these plaintiffs, because City failed to give notice which was reasonably calculated to inform them; sending notice via mail would have been possible and inexpensive, as plaintiffs had received assessment notices and property tax bills for 23 years. Holding, which is "as applied to plaintiffs", does not affect continuing validity of use of publication notice under Section 11-13-2. (Dissent filed.)

Grain company and oil company filed declaratory judgment action challenging constitutionality of County School Facility Occupation Tax Law in Counties Code, which allows county governments to impose 1% sales tax for school facility use, and validity of two county ordinances that authorized imposition of the 1% sales tax in Williamson County. Plaintiff corporations met common law requirements for standing, as claim of injury is distinct and palpable, is fairly traceable to Defendants' actions, and is substantially likely to be prevented or redressed by grant of relief requested. Corporations do not lack standing by fact that they may pass school facility tax on to their customers, as it does not negate effect of tax upon them. Section 11-301 of Code of Civil Procedure does not preclude corporations, which are corporate citizens, from filing actions under that Section.

Court granted summary judgment in favor of Village upon Petitioners' (from subdivision) petition to disconnect from village. Under Munipical Code, within one year of organization of any municiplaity, disconnection is allowed of any territory that is "upon the border, but within the boundary of the municipality" and which meets other statutory criteria. Division between territory and forest preserve is not "the border" under Code, as that would mean a municipality may have more than one border. No isolation of a territory occurs only if a continuing and connected boundary line exists; and such line can exist only on the periperhery, not as an internal border.

School Board cannot decrease health insurance benefits provided to retirees under collective bargaining agreements after expiration of agreements. Federal common law applies to action filed by 107 retired teachers, who have standing to sue for benefits granted under previous collective bargaining agreements.

Condo association filed action for improper land usage against hospitals which were located within 250 feet of Plaintiffs' property. Plaintiffs challenged validity of zoning amendment as exceeding floor plan density limitations, building was not permitted use, and failed to require construction start time. Plaintiffs sought administrative review of resolution approving application for planned developments on hospital campus. Power to enact zoning ordinances falls within broad grant of home rule authority, and ordinance is not rendered unconstitutional because home-rule municipality violated its own self-imposed ordinances in enacting another ordinance. Plaintiffs cannot rebut presumption of validity of ordinance.

LLC and City entered into annexation agreement to annex 36 acres at corner of Randall Road and Route 72. Property was never developed, and annexation agreement expired in 2001. LLC filed suit to disconnect property from City's corporate limits. Equitable estoppel can be raised as affirmative defense to disconnection petition. Challenge to sufficiency of affirmative defenses can be response to summary judgment motion, as affirmative defenses first raised in summary judgment motion are not waived by not raising them in answer. Summary judgment properly denied as City failed to adequately plead and establish two elements of estoppel: misrepresentation and knowledge of its falsity. Failure to develop property does not necessarily indicate false representations of intent to develop it.

Ordinance of fire protection district does not conflict with Fire Protection District Act, but sets out procedure for receipt of health coverage benefits; it does not divest court of jurisdiction as District's Board had power to administer benefits to employees. Plaintiff's injury during live-fire training exercise (injury to shoulder when lifting furniture to free fire hose) does not qualify as response to what Plaintiff "reasonably believed to be an emergency" under the Act, as "emergency" is urgent and calls for immediate action