Local Government Law

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to stop the City of Joliet from annexing and developing a proposed industrial business park, alleging that it would constitute a public and private nuisance and that the pre-annexation agreement was null and void. The trial court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss on the basis that the complaint did not state a valid cause of action. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part, finding that plaintiffs properly pled a cause of action for private nuisance as to some of the plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs adequately stated a claim for common-law public nuisance. The appellate court affirmed dismissal of the count of the complaint seeking to invalidate the pre-annexation agreement on the basis that the allegation that the contract was vague did not qualify as an illegal or unauthorized act of a public body. The appellate court also found that the trial court properly dismissed a count of the complaint alleging a violation of the Open Meetings Act. (BRENNAN and ALBRECHT, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Village of Oak Brook alleging that it held a closed meeting in violation of the Open Meetings Act and that it wrongly denied a request for records pertaining to the meeting in violation of the Freedom of Information Act. The trial court granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, ordered that the village disclose the requested records, and ordered that the village pay attorneys fees. The village appealed and the appellate court affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded. The appellate court found that the village did not satisfy the collective-negotiating-matters exception to OMA because there was no active or imminent collective bargaining when it held its closed session and that the village did not discuss probable or imminent litigation and, as a result, the trial court did not err when it entered summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. However, the appellate court further found that the trial court erred when it required disclosure under FOIA without consideration of whether any of the requested documents were privileged attorney-client communications because privileged communications are exempt from disclosure. (McDADE and ALBRECHT, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants petitioning for a writ of mandamus requiring that alleged incremental taxes owed to the village be paid and for declaratory judgment regarding payments and alleged violations of the Tax Increment Allocation Redevelopment Act. The trial court grated defendant’s motion to dismiss and plaintiff appealed. The appellate court reversed and remanded, finding that the TIF district at issue did not exceed the statutory 23-year limitation period because it required 24 payments instead of 23 payments and, as a result, the circuit court erred when it granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. (BOIE, concurring and VAUGHAN, specially concurring)

Plaintiffs brought a lawsuit against Cook County challenging the county’s use of transportation tax revenue and arguing that it was unconstitutional under a constitutional amendment that was adopted in 2016. The appellate court considered two orders of the circuit court, the first of which was a grant of a summary determination of a major issue in which the circuit court found that the plaintiffs were unable to challenge the County’s expenditures under previous fiscal years. The second order granted summary judgment in favor of the county by finding that the county’s spending in fiscal year 2023 complied with the constitutional amendment. The appellate court affirmed the first order but vacated the second, finding that the county did not establish that its spending complied with the amendment. The appellate court also concluded that the plaintiffs had not definitely shown that the county’s spending violated the amendment. (HOWSE and McBRIDE, concurring)

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking to obtain information relating to their Firearm Owner’s Identification cards after the Illinois State Police denied their request for documents under FOIA on the grounds that the requested information was exempt from disclosure. The trial court ordered ISP to produce the information and the appellate court affirmed, finding that the exemption contained an exception for information pertaining to the requester. The Supreme Court reversed, finding that there was no exception in the language of FOIA and that the requested information was exempt from disclosure. The court noted, however, that the plaintiffs had other avenues to obtain the desired information. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, HOLDER WHITE, ROCHFORD, and O’BRIEN, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendants seeking to invalidate an intragovernmental agreement between several municipalities by alleging that the agreement violated the Road Improvement Impact Fee Law. The trial court entered judgment in favor of the defendant county and made findings pursuant to SCR 304(a). The appellate court affirmed, finding that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine did not apply. (BIRKETT and MULLEN, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a complaint seeking to compel the production of documents under FOIA. The city tendered the requested documents after suit was filed. The trial court denied the request to produce documents as moot but still awarded plaintiff statutory attorneys fees. The city appealed form the award of attorneys fees. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the lawsuit was reasonably necessary to obtain the requested documents. (McDADE and BRENNAN, concurring)

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act after the defendant refused to produce photographs taken by a county medical examiner in conjunction with a murder investigation on the basis that the photos were exempt from disclosure because their disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiff but found that defendant did not act with willful or intentional misconduct. Plaintiff appealed, challenging the trial court’s finding that the county did not willfully or intentionally fail to comply with FOIA. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the trial court properly denied plaintiff’s requests for civil penalties because there was no evidence in the record that the defendant was motivated by bad faith. (LAVIN and HYMAN, concurring)