Local Government Law

Heyde v. Pittenger

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Heyde v. Pittenger
Civil Court
Real Estate
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-1388
Decision Date: 
January 11, 2011
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing without prejudice plaintiff's section 1983 action alleging that defendants-County Bd. of Review and its Bd. members violated plaintiff's equal protection rights by setting plaintiff's property assessment at levels grossly disproportionate to its fair market value. Dist. Ct. could properly find that plaintiff's claim was premature where plaintiff had not yet exhausted his state-court remedy with respect to his appeal of Bd.'s assessment. Moreover, Dist. Ct. properly found that individual Bd. members were entitled to absolute immunity when making instant assessment.

Ray v. City of Chicago

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Ray v. City of Chicago
Civil Court
Section 1983 Actions
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-3719
Decision Date: 
January 5, 2011
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendants-City and police officer's motion to dismiss for failure to state claim in section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's 4th Amendment rights when they arrested and detained plaintiff on drug possession charge during time that defendant had been detained on traffic stop. Plaintiff could not maintain instant action where police had probable cause to believe that plaintiff had committed traffic offense, and thus it was irrelevant as to whether police had probable cause to arrest plaintiff on drug possession charge where she could have been arrested on traffic offense. Moreover, plaintiff's malicious prosecution claim was properly dismissed since plaintiff had state-court forum to address her claim. Plaintiff also could not recast malicious prosecution claim as Brady violation where plaintiff was never fully prosecuted on drug possession charge that was eventually dismissed.

LaBella Winnetka, Inc. v. The Village of Winnetka

Federal 7th Circuit Court
LaBella Winnetka, Inc. v. The Village of Winnetka
Civil Court
1983 Actions
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-3297
Decision Date: 
December 29, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in dismissing plaintiff's section 1983 action alleging violations of due process and equal protection rights when defendants-City officials failed to either issue needed permits to repair plaintiff's restaurant, send forms to renew plaintiff's liquor license, or permit portions of plaintiff's restaurant to be open during restaurant's repair when they allowed other restaurants to operate under similar circumstances. Plaintiff failed to show that damages it sustained to its roof were sufficiently similar to damages sustained by proposed comparable restaurants so as to establish class-of-one equal protection claim. Moreover, as to plaintiff's substantive and procedural due process claims, plaintiff failed to adequately plead that it had no adequate state law remedy to address any alleged deprivation of property interests in its restaurant business.

The Village of Palatine v. Palatine Associates

The Village of Palatine v. Palatine Associates
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Condemnation
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-10-1002
Decision Date: 
Friday, December 17, 2010
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Affirmed.
Justice: 
R.E. GORDON
Village filed condemnation proceeding to acquire property that was being used for a shopping center. Court properly dismissed shopping center petition of dry cleaner tenant for compensation for trade fixtures, as tenant had no interest in the condemnation award. Had Village attempted to take tenant's fixtures by eminent domain, it would have been entitled to a portion of the award, but condemnation provision and termination provision in lease between tenant and shopping center prevent tenant from being compensated. (GARCIA and McBRIDE, concurring.)

Parvati v. City of Oak Forest, Illinois

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Parvati v. City of Oak Forest, Illinois
Civil Court
Standing
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 09-1107
Decision Date: 
December 23, 2010
Federal District: 
N.D. Ill., E. Div.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
Plaintiff lacked standing to pursue motion for post judgment relief under Rule 60(b)(3) of Fed. Rules of Civil Procedure in action challenging Zoning Commission’s denial of plaintiff’s request to convert hotel property into senior-living facility, which was necessary to facilitate eventual sale of said property. Plaintiff’s motion came one year after Dist. Ct.’s affirmance of Commission’s denial of plaintiff’s request for conversion of property, and after plaintiff had: (1) voluntarily dismissed other claims against defendant; and (2) no longer owned subject property. Fact that plaintiff had re-filed said voluntarily-dismissed claims against defendant that did not depend on plaintiff’s continued ownership of property did not serve to confer standing on instant claim even though said re-filed claims were now subject to potential dismissal on grounds of issue or claim preclusion.

Sallenger v. City of Springfield, Ill.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
Sallenger v. City of Springfield, Ill.
Civil Court
Section 1983 Actions
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 08-3769
Decision Date: 
December 17, 2010
Federal District: 
C.D. Ill.
Holding: 
Affirmed
Dist. Ct. did not err in granting motion for summary judgment by defendants-police officers and City in section 1983 action alleging that defendants-officers inadequately responded to plaintiff's medical needs during incident in which unruly plaintiff was subdued and restrained during domestic dispute, and where plaintiff stopped breathing and eventually died after officers had handcuffed plaintiff and placed him in hobble cord. Record did not support plaintiff's contention that there was unreasonable seven-minute delay between time that officers first realized that plaintiff was unconscious and time they began to administer medical aid, but rather supported proposition that officers began treatment in timely fashion. Moreover, plaintiff could not support Morrell action against defendant-City for failure to train its officers on use of hobble where officers had previously prevailed against plaintiff in related excessive force claim.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.

Federal 7th Circuit Court
International Brotherhood of Teamsters Airline Division v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.
Civil Court
Labor Law
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 10-2291
Decision Date: 
December 13, 2010
Federal District: 
E.D. Wisc.
Holding: 
Vacated and remanded
Dist. Ct. erred in granting plaintiff-union's request for preliminary injunction to preclude defendant-employer from making any unilateral alteration in working conditions for its mechanics prior to resolution of union's representation issue in dispute concerning whether plaintiff was proper representative of defendant's mechanics following defendant's purchase and merger of company that had previously employed said mechanics. Defendant claimed that purchased company was now part of single, larger transportation unit that would preclude plaintiff from being union representative of any of defendant's mechanics, and while imposition of injunction could be appropriate remedy until said representation issue has been resolved by National Mediation Bd., Ct. found that modification of instant injunction was appropriate so as to condition any injunction relief upon plaintiff's timely application to Bd. for ruling on issue concerning representation of defendant's mechanics.

Ruisard v. The Village of Glen Ellyn

Ruisard v. The Village of Glen Ellyn
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Ordinances
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 2-09-1083
Decision Date: 
Monday, November 29, 2010
District: 
2d Dist.
Division/County: 
DuPage Co.
Holding: 
Affirmed in part, reversed in part; remanded.
Justice: 
BOWMAN
Plaintiffs filed suit against Village and cell phone company, alleging that in granting special-use permit to cell phone company to install 9 additional antennae on tower (when 13 had been placed there previously) was a violation of ordinances passed by Village 16 years ago which granted special-use permit for construction of water tower, subject to the condition that "antennas on the tower are to be kept at a minimum". Plaintiffs have standing, as Municipal Code provides that an owner must show that his property or person will be substantially affected by the alleged violation, and need not prove any specific, special or unique damages. Claim of injuries caused by exposure to RF levels is preempted by the Telecommunications Act. The phrase "at a minimum" in ordinance is ambiguous, and thus court gives deference to the Village's interpretation. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim that the "at a minimum" requirement was violated. (O'MALLEY and HUDSON, concurring.)

Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, Illinois v. First Nat’l Bank of Franklin Park

Illinois Supreme Court PLAs
Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, Illinois v. First Nat’l Bank of Franklin Park
Civil Court
Condemnation
Citation
PLA issue Date: 
November 24, 2010
Docket Number: 
Nos. 110759 and 110760 Cons.
District: 
2nd Dist.
This case presents question as to whether, in condemnation action, trial court properly denied property owner’s request to hold post-trial evidentiary hearing to determine value of subject property as of date of trial. Under section 7-121 of Eminent Domain Act, value of condemned property is to be determined as of 1999 date on which instant condemnation action was filed and not 2007 date of trial. However, Appellate Court, in remanding case for evidentiary hearing, found that section 7-121 was unconstitutional to extent property increased in value during pendency of case.

American Service Insurance Co. v. City of Chicago

American Service Insurance Co. v. City of Chicago
Illinois Appellate Court
Civil Court
Administrative Law
Citation
Case Number: 
No. 1-09-1693
Decision Date: 
Friday, September 17, 2010
District: 
1st Dist.
Division/County: 
Cook Co., 6th Div.
Holding: 
Reversed and remanded.
Justice: 
ROBERT E. GORDON
(Court opinion corrected 10/14/10.) Suit filed by insurers to defeat any liability by them for coverage for administrative judgments against their insureds in administrative actions filed by City of Chicago. Insurer which obtained default orders against policyholder defendants still has standing to pursue the policyholders' claims, as no final declaratory judgment has been entered by trial court. A default order is no guarantee of ultimate success, so a plaintiff is permitted to pursue alternate theories of recovery until a final judgment is secured. Default judgment did not render insurer's claims moot, as public interest exception applies, because the pertinent issue, whether a municipality can pursue damages for motor vehicle accidents in an administrative proceeding, is a public question. (CAHILL and McBRIDE, concurring.)