Municipal Minute

Updates on cases, laws, and other topics of interest to local governments

Subscribe by Email

Enter your Email:
Preview | Powered by FeedBlitz

Disclaimer

Blog comments do not reflect the views or opinions of the Author or Ancel Glink. Some of the content may be considered attorney advertising material under the applicable rules of certain states. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Please read our full disclaimer

Friday, October 10, 2025

Homeowner Not Entitled to Compensation for Property Damage in Search of Home

  Friday, October 10, 2025    

The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the dismissal of a homeowner's Fifth Amendment "takings" claim lawsuit brought against a city and county seeking compensation for damages caused by law enforcement officers who entered her home pursuant to a search warrant to search for a fugitive they incorrectly believed was inside the home. Hadley v. City of South Bend, Ind.

In 2022, law enforcement believed that a murder suspect was residing in a South Bend home based on social media posts and the suspect's IP address, and obtained a search warrant to search the home for the suspect. Although the homeowner informed the officers that she had no connection with, or knowledge of, the suspect, officers forcefully entered her home, breaking windows, launching 30 cannisters of tear gas, wrecking internal security cameras, punching holes in walls, ransacking furniture and a closet, and tearing down a wall panel and fan. The suspect was not found in the home.

When the city and county refused to reimburse the homeowner for the damages to her home, she filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city and county, claiming that law enforcement violated the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution when it damaged her property and that she was owed $16,000 in "just compensation." The district court dismissed her case, and she appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

The Seventh Circuit agreed with the district court that the "takings" clause of the Fifth Amendment did not entitle her to compensation, holding that the government is not obligated to compensate for property damage resulting from law enforcement officers executing a lawful search warrant. Because the warrant was lawful, the Seventh Circuit held that her lawsuit against the city and county was properly dismissed as she was not entitled to compensation for the property damages.


  

  No Comments

Thursday, October 9, 2025

From The Workplace Report: Opinion Letter Issued by DOL on Calculating Overtime

  Thursday, October 09, 2025    

In case you don't already follow Ancel Glink's employment law blog, The Workplace Report (and you should!), you may want to check out a recent blog post about a Department of Labor opinion letter clarifying that "emergency pay" premiums provided to firefighters and other non-exempt employees during declared emergencies must be included in the regular rate of pay when calculating overtime premiums under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 

You can read the blog post at the following link: Opinion Letter Issued by the Department of Labor on Calculating Overtime

  

  No Comments

Wednesday, October 8, 2025

Ancel Glink at the APA-IL Conference

  Wednesday, October 08, 2025    

If you are attending the American Planning Association Illinois State Chapter's (APA-IL) Conference this week, be sure to stop by to check out one or more of the sessions presented by Ancel Glink attorneys:

Wednesday, October 8th 

2:15 pm -3:15 pm - Municipal Initiated Upzonings: Lessons Learned

Presenters: Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink), Katharyn Hurd (City of Chicago), Eric Van Buskirk (City of Champaign), and Meagan Jones (City of Evanston)

Thursday, October 9th

1:00 pm - 2:00 pm     Injunctions & Dragons: Planning Law Fantasy Adventure

Presenters:  Dan Bolin (Ancel Glink), Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink), Trevor Dick (Village of Lombard), and Phil Green (Village of Hoffman Estates)

3:30 pm - 4:30 pm     GovLove + APA-IL Live Podcast: Award-Winning Planners

Presenters: Dan Bolin (Ancel Glink) and Andy Cross (The Lakota Group)

3:30 pm - 4:30 pm     Small But Mighty: ADUs, Tiny Homes & Cottage Communities

Presenters: Greg Jones (Ancel Glink), Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink), David Silverman (Ancel Glink), Angela Mesaros (Village of Homewood), Falon Young (City of Chicago), and Samar Jha (AARP)

3:30 pm - 4:30 pm     "Wait" A Ride: Navigating the Regulatory Landscape of E-Bikes and E-Scooters

Presenters: Eugene Bolotnikov (Ancel Glink) and Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

Friday, October 10th

2:15 pm - 3:15 pm     E-Scooters, E-Bikes & Public Camping Regulations: Strategies for Municipal Planners to Avoid Legal Roadblocks

Presenters: Megan Mack (Ancel Glink) and Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)


   /

  No Comments

Tuesday, October 7, 2025

Workers Compensation Benefits Barred Where Pension Board Denied Line-of-Duty Benefits

  Tuesday, October 07, 2025    

An Illinois Appellate Court recently held that a pension board's decision to deny line-of-duty benefits and award a police department employee a non-duty pension barred him from receiving workers compensation benefits for that injury. City of Zion Police Department v. Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission.

A detective in a city police department filed an application for workers compensation benefits for bilateral wrist injuries he claimed he sustained while performing a “burpee” exercise during a firearms training event. The city argued that the employee's workers compensation claim was barred due to a prior decision by a pension board that had denied the employee's request for line-of-duty disability benefits and awarded him nonduty disability benefits for the wrist injuries. Both the arbitrator and the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission ruled in favor of the employee, finding that the issues litigated before the pension board were different than those presented in the workers compensation case. The city appealed.

On appeal, the circuit court reversed the Workers Compensation Commission's decision, and held that the employee was "collaterally estopped" from relitigating the issues relating to his wrist injuries, where that issue had already been decided by the pension board when it found that his wrist injuries were not caused by the training exercise. The employee appealed to the Appellate Court, which agreed with the circuit court that the employee was bound by the pension board's decision that his wrist injuries were not duty-related (which he did not appeal). As a result, the employee did not qualify for workers compensation benefits for the wrist injuries.

Disclaimer: Ancel Glink represented the City in this case.

  

  No Comments

Monday, October 6, 2025

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 97: Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement

  Monday, October 06, 2025    

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast recently released Episode 97: Anatomy of a Redevelopment Agreement.

In this episode, Ancel Glink partner David S. Silverman, FAICP, provides an in-depth breakdown of the essential components and negotiation strategies for drafting effective Redevelopment Agreements (RDAs) from his presentation at the Southland Development Authority’s TIF Talk training session. David explains that the RDAs serve as a clear roadmap for the project, governing everything from development specifics to the flow of incentives and guarantees, requiring an internal logic that ensures it remains understandable for potentially decades. 

   / /

  No Comments

Wednesday, October 1, 2025

Involuntary Annexation Upheld by Appellate Court

  Wednesday, October 01, 2025    

An Illinois Appellate Court recently upheld a municipality's involuntary annexation of property in Husky Trans, Inc. v. Village of Barrington Hills. 

After the village board discussed the possible annexation of two unincorporated parcels of land, it sent notice to the owner that the village board would consider annexing the parcels at a board meeting. The notice also informed the owner that the property would be rezoned to the R1 single family residential zoning district upon annexation. The owner's attorney sent a response to the village that the owner objected to the forcible annexation, arguing that the parcels did not qualify for annexation under section 7-1-13 of the Illinois Municipal Code because the parcels were not "wholly bounded" by one or more municipalities, forest preserve, or park district property. 

After the village board annexed the property, the owner filed a lawsuit, claiming that the village lacked authority to annex the parcels because, among other things, the territory was not “wholly bounded” by one or more municipalities or a forest preserve or park district as is required by section 7-1-13 of the Illinois Municipal Code. The owner argued that two "gaps" in the boundary of the annexed parcels abutted unincorporated territory, thus defeating the annexation. The village responded that the gaps abutting railroad right-of-way should be treated differently for purposes of annexation and, in any event, the minor gaps in the boundary were "de minimus" and should not support invalidation of the annexation. 

The trial court ruled in the owner's favor, finding that the gaps in the boundary invalidated the annexation. The village appealed, and the Appellate Court reversed, holding that the annexation was valid. The Court agreed with the village that the annexed territory was entirely surrounded as required by state statute except for two small gaps created by railroad right-of-way. Since those gaps represented only 4.7 percent of the total perimeter of the annexed property, the Court found them to be inconsequential and insufficient to defeat the "wholly bounded" requirement of the annexation statute. As a result, the Court held that the annexation was valid.


  

  No Comments

Tuesday, September 30, 2025

Ancel Glink at the 2025 ILA Conference

  Tuesday, September 30, 2025    

Ancel Glink attorneys Julie Tappendorf and Erin Monforti will be speaking at multiple sessions at this year's Illinois Library Association (ILA) conference taking place October 14-16 in Rosemont. If you will be at the ILA conference, we hope you can stop in to one (or more) of our sessions and say hi.

Ready for Anything: Responding to First Amendment Audits

  • Tuesday, October 14, 2:45 p.m. - 3:45 p.m.
  • Speakers: Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink; Dustin Smaby, Vernon Area Public Library District 

Courageous Belonging: Navigating Public Backlash and the First Amendment with Care 

  • Wednesday, October 15, 1:45 p.m. - 2:45 p.m.
  • Speakers: Holly Bartecki, Jasculca Terman Strategic Communications; Kelly Durov, Northbrook Public Library; Kate Hall, Northbrook Public Library; Stacy Oliver, Northbrook Public Library; Elizabeth Rupert, Joffe Emergency Services; Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink; Linda Vering, Northbrook Public Library 

Book Bans and Intellectual Freedom for Trustees 

  • Thursday, October 16, 11:00 a.m. - noon
  • Speakers: Sheri Doniger, Lincolnwood Public Library District; Becky Keane, Niles-Maine District Library; Elizabeth Lynch, Addison Public Library; Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink 
  • Presented by the Intellectual Freedom Committee (IFC)

Keeping it Legal on Social Media

  • Thursday, October 16, 3:00 p.m. - 4:00 p.m.
  • Speaker: Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink
  • Presented by the Library Trustee Forum (LTF)

   /

  No Comments

Friday, September 26, 2025

Charges Brought in Wisconsin Regarding an Unlawful Recording of Closed Meeting

  Friday, September 26, 2025    

Interesting development out of Wisconsin where two individuals were arrested for recording a closed session meeting of a county board. According to news reports, a city administrator and his sister were arrested after surveillance video showed that the city administrator's sister had placed her phone against the door to a closed meeting of the county board in an attempt to intercept the discussions during the closed meeting. Authorities charged both with intercepting an oral communication during a closed session which, in Wisconsin, is a Class H felony subject to fines of $1,000 and up to six years of prison time. The city administrator was charged after authorities discovered communications between the two that took place on Facebook Messenger during and about the incident. 

WPR reporting available here.

  

  No Comments

Thursday, September 25, 2025

Illinois Federal Court Applies Lindke Test in Social Media Lawsuit

  Thursday, September 25, 2025    

Thanks to one of our blog readers for sending today's case which involves the application of the "actual authority" test that was adopted in 2024 by the U.S. Supreme Court in Lindke v. Freed case that applies to challenges to a public officials' or employees' actions on social media.

In 2015, a candidate for the office of Illinois state representative created a Facebook page. She won her election, and in 2024, created a separate "house minority leader" Facebook page where she engaged with citizens. She also continued to post on her original Facebook page and interact with citizens about state business. After someone posted critical comments on her original Facebook page, she deleted the negative comments and blocked the individual from her page. The individual then sued the state representative, claiming that the official's actions violated her First Amendment and civil rights.

This week, an Illinois district court judge dismissed the case on several bases, including that the complaint did not satisfy the two-part "actual authority" test that was adopted by the U.S. Supreme Court last year in Lindke v. Freed. We reported on the Lindke case previously. In order for a government official's or employee's activities on social media (e.g., deleting comments or banning or blocking persons from commenting on their social media pages) to be considered "state action" for purposes of a First Amendment civil rights lawsuit, the person suing must show that the government official or employee (1) had actual authority to speak on behalf of the government on a particular matter and (2) purported to exercise that authority in the action being challenged.

Here, the court found that the complaint did not contain sufficient allegations that the state representative had "actual authority" in this matter. Specifically, the court said that the complaint did not refer to any law, policy, or regulation that vested the state representative with authority to speak on the state's behalf. The court acknowledged that the minority leader may have some authority to speak on the state's behalf, but the plaintiff had not identified any express authority, and that simply discussing state business on social media is not sufficient to meet the first prong of the Lindke test. The court also noted that the complaint failed to meet the second prong of the Lindke case since the plaintiff did not point to any specific Facebook posts where the state representative exercised actual authority to speak on the state's behalf.

In sum, the court dismissed the complaint, although has allowed the plaintiff to file an amended complaint if he can cure the deficiencies noted in the court's ruling. We will keep an eye on this case and report back if there are new developments. This case is worth a read for government officials and employees seeking guidance on how a court might apply the new Supreme Court two-part "actual authority" test for social media activities.

Devore v. McCombie


   /

  No Comments

Friday, September 19, 2025

City Could Withhold Employment Taxes from PEDA Benefits

  Friday, September 19, 2025    

The Illinois Supreme Court issued an opinion this week finding that the Illinois Public Employee Disability Act (commonly referred to as PEDA), does not prohibit a city from withholding employment taxes from payments made under the PEDA statute. Bitner v. City of Pekin.

Two former police officers had applied for and were granted PEDA benefits after they were injured in the line of duty. PEDA provides that eligible employees who suffer an injury in the line of duty that causes them to be unable to perform their duties are entitled to be paid by their employer on the same basis as before their injury for a period up to a year. PEDA also states that no deduction can be made for sick leave credits, compensatory time for overtime accumulations or vacation, or service credits in a pension fund while the employee is receiving PEDA benefits. The officers filed a lawsuit, claiming that PEDA prohibited the city from withholding employment taxes (federal and state income taxes, social security taxes, and Medicare taxes) from their PEDA benefits. The trial court ruled in favor of the officers, but on appeal, the appellate court ruled in favor of the city, and the officers appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.

The Illinois Supreme Court analyzed the language of section 1(b) of PEDA, and determined that there was no express language prohibiting an employer from withholding employment taxes, unlike the express prohibition in PEDA for leave deductions. The Court also held that the officers failed to provide any evidence that PEDA payments were exempt from federal income tax, and did not point to any statute or IRS ruling that prohibits a government employer from withholding taxes from PEDA payments. As a result, the Court held that employees receiving PEDA benefits could seek a refund or adjust their tax withholding to address the tax issue, rather than requiring employers to determine whether an employee has or does not have a tax liability. In sum, the Illinois Supreme Court found in favor of the city, holding that PEDA did not prohibit the city from withholding employment taxes from the PEDA benefits paid to the two officers. 



  

  No Comments

Thursday, September 18, 2025

Court Remands Challenge to Fast Track Demolition to Circuit Court

  Thursday, September 18, 2025    

An Illinois Appellate Court issued an opinion in a case involving a municipality's use of a "fast track" demolition to demolish a a building. JB Distribution Market of SLC v. City of Peoria.

A city filed an action in circuit court under Section 11-31-1(e) of the Illinois Municipal Code to obtain an order authorizing the demolition of a building that the city argued was in an unsafe condition. The circuit court issued the order, and the city hired a contractor to demolish the building. The owner of the building filed a lawsuit asking the court to enjoin the city from demolition activities. The owner argued it was entitled to relief under the statute based on language that entitles an owner to a "stay" of demolition if the owner files a complaint before the municipality proceeds with the demolition activities authorized by the statute. The city argued its contractor had already proceeded with demolition activities, precluding relief under the statute. The circuit court agreed, and ruled in favor of the city and dismissed the complaint.

If, however, before the municipality proceeds with any of the actions authorized by this subsection, any person with a legal or equitable interest in the property has sought a hearing under this subsection before a court and has served a copy of the complaint on the chief executive officer of the municipality, then the municipality shall not proceed with the demolition, repair, enclosure, or removal of garbage, debris, or other substances until the court determines that that action is necessary to remedy the hazard and issues an order authorizing the municipality to do so. 65 ILCS 5/11-31-1(e)

On appeal, the Appellate Court disagreed with the circuit court's ruling, finding that it was not clear whether installation of fencing and asbestos testing was sufficient to start the process of demolition, and sent the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings.

  

  No Comments

Wednesday, September 17, 2025

Court Rules in Favor of Park District In Tree Stump Injury Lawsuit

  Wednesday, September 17, 2025    

An Illinois Appellate Court recently ruled in favor of a park district in a lawsuit filed by a person injured when she fell on a tree stump on property owned by the park district. The injury occurred at a park owned by the park district, in an area directly behind the plaintiff's family member's home. The plaintiff was playing badminton that her family member had set up on park district property. In her lawsuit against the park district, she claimed the park district was liable for her injury because it occurred on park district land. The park district countered that the Tort Immunity Act applied to defeat her claims, arguing that the plaintiff was neither an intended nor permitted user of the property, and the tree stump condition and risk were "open and obvious." The circuit court ruled in favor of the park district, and the case was appealed.

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the ruling in favor of the park district. First, the Appellate Court determined that the park district had enacted an ordinance that restricted games and sports in designated areas only, and the open space area located behind the home where the injury occurred was not a designated area for sports such as badminton. As a result, the plaintiff was not an intended user of that area when she was playing badminton. Second, the Appellate Court noted that the photos taken of the area showed that the tree stump condition was open and obvious and, as a result, she should have recognized the danger and taken care to avoid risk. Third, the Appellate Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the park district's conduct was "willful and wanton" as the park district had received no complaints about the tree stump, and the area where it was located was not a high traffic area. Wright v. Gurnee Park District.





  No Comments

Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)