Local Government Law

Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing on res judicata grounds plaintiffs' lawsuit alleging that defendant-Village violated Equal Protection, Due Process and Takings Clauses by implementing TIF District and otherwise frustrating plaintiffs' efforts to privately sell shopping center, where parties had entered into settlement agreement of prior state-court lawsuit that alleged similar cause of action. Record showed that both causes of action relied on same operative facts and concerned similar allegations that defendant's conduct interfered with plaintiffs' ability to profit from shopping center. Fact that instant lawsuit sought recovery based on additional theories not mentioned in prior lawsuit or that, according to plaintiffs, instant settlement agreement was not properly procured was immaterial.

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-County's motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendant violated plaintiff's due process rights, as well as constructively took plaintiff's property without adequate compensation when defendant rescinded commercial zoning designation on portion of plaintiff's property pursuant to state appellate court ruling in lawsuit filed by plaintiff that had requested court to make permanent said commercial designation. Language in existing ordinance made commercial zoning designation valid only for as long as plaintiff owned property, and instant striking of commercial zoning designation was not tantamount to constructive taking of plaintiff's property where plaintiff freely agreed to conditional zoning designation when it was initially given. Moreover, state court's reversion of property to its original agricultural/residential zoning designation did not render property useless for purposes of supporting any takings claim. Fact that plaintiff had alternative administrative remedy in County Code to review zoning designation did not translate into finding that due process given to plaintiff in instant state-court review was inadequate where plaintiff was given full opportunity to rebut defendant's claim that ordinance giving plaintiff conditional zoning designation was invalid in its entirety. (Partial Dissent filed.)

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendants-police officers' motion for summary judgment based on qualified immunity in section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's 4th Amendments rights when they arrested her during investigation of report that someone was casing neighborhood for possible robberies by taking picture of homes. Dist. Ct. properly concluded that factual dispute existed as to whether defendants held honest belief that plaintiff was engaged in criminal activity where record showed that plaintiff, African-American ComEd employee in predominantly Caucasian neighborhood, was reading meters at time of stop, and where arrest came after plaintiff had explained that she was reading meters on behalf of ComEd and had produced work-related identification. Moreover, defendants could not justify arrest on obstruction of peace officer charge where record showed that plaintiff had merely argued with defendants about her detention.