Court Dismisses Candidate's Appeal of Electoral Board Decision for Late Filing and Failure to Serve

Court Dismisses Candidate's Appeal of Electoral Board Decision for Late Filing and Failure to Serve

  Thursday, April 03, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

A candidate (Candidate) filed nomination papers to run for the office of Township Supervisor. An objection to the Candidate’s nomination was filed, based on a violation of section 10-4 of the Election Code (regarding form of petitions for nomination). The Electoral Board sustained the objection, finding that the Candidate’s nomination papers were invalid.

The Candidate, with legal representation, appealed the Electoral Board’s decision, but the appeal was not timely filed as it was filed more than five days after the decision and he included no proof of service in the filing. The Candidate then filed a series of motions pro se (without legal representation), including a motion to amend his appeal, claiming his lawyer was responsible for the delay in filing and seeking to delete all references to the lawyer. The Candidate also filed “proof of delivery” with the motions, but that proof did not indicate that the parties were actually served in compliance with the statutory requirements.

The Electoral Board filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the trial court did not have jurisdiction to review its decision because the Candidate failed to file his petition in time and to properly serve the parties. In response, the Candidate did not dispute that he filed the petition late, but argued his attorney’s misconduct caused the delay, so he should not be penalized. The trial court dismissed the appeal, agreeing with the Electoral Board that it did not have jurisdiction to review the matter.

The Candidate appealed that decision. The Candidate argued that the trial court failed to consider the impact of his attorney’s conduct, and asked that the dismissal of his appeal be overturned. He cited several cases to support his argument that the filing requirement should have been relaxed due to his attorney’s actions. However, the Appellate Court found that the cases he cited did not exist, except for a U.S. Supreme Court case that dealt with federal law rather than Illinois law. Because the Candidate filed his appeal of the Electoral Board’s decision late, and because he never properly served the parties by registered or certified mail, the Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of the Candidate's appeal. Moore v. Thornton Township Electoral Board, 2025 IL App (1st) 250349-U

Post Authored by Rachel Defries & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

PAC Finds Police Department in Violation of FOIA in Withholding Resignation and Termination Records

PAC Finds Police Department in Violation of FOIA in Withholding Resignation and Termination Records

  Wednesday, April 02, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In response to a FOIA request seeking copies of resignation/termination records and payroll records for city law enforcement officers, a city police department (Department) disclosed the payroll records, but withheld resignation/termination records citing various exemptions under FOIA. After the requestor appealed to the Public Access Counselor of the Attorney General's Office (PAC), the PAC issued binding opinion PAC Op. 25-002 finding that the Department improperly withheld its responsive termination/resignation records.

First, the PAC determined that the Department did not provide detailed factual basis demonstrating how and why disclosing its withheld termination/resignation records would interfere with either (1) a pending or actually and reasonably contemplated law enforcement proceeding or (2) an active administrative enforcement proceeding. Even if the Department had established the existence of an active administrative enforcement proceeding, the PAC opined that the Department improperly withheld its records under a cited exemption because they were not created in the course of that proceeding.

The PAC also rejected the Department’s argument that disclosing the withheld records would create a substantial likelihood of depriving people of a fair trial or an impartial hearing, because the Department did not demonstrate that (1) a trial or adjudication was pending or imminent, and (2) that is was more probable than not that disclosing the records would interfere with a fair trial of impartial hearing. Notably, the PAC stated that the existence of a pending investigation/proceeding or the possibility of criminal charges being filed is not sufficient to establish that a trial is “pending or imminent” for purposes of Section 7(1)(d)(iii) of FOIA.

The PAC also rejected the Department’s argument that the resignation/termination records were confidential and not subject to disclosure under Section 7(1)(d-6) of FOIA, which exempts:

Records contained in the Officer Professional Conduct Database (Database) under Section 9.2 of the Illinois Police Training Act (Act), except to the extent authorized under Section 9.2 of the Act.

Although Section 9.2(c) of the Act generally requires the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board (Board) to maintain the confidentiality of certain local law enforcement records that are obtained by or disclosed to the Board, these confidentiality restrictions prohibit the Board, not local law enforcement entities, from disclosing public records shared with the Board. Because the Act expressly states that local law enforcement agencies are not exempt from disclosing public records subject to FOIA, the PAC reasoned that the Department was authorized to disclose its responsive termination/resignation records, even if those records had been shared with the Board. 

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Read More

Appellate Court Decides Damages Claims in Development Agreement Dispute

Appellate Court Decides Damages Claims in Development Agreement Dispute

  Tuesday, April 01, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

A developer entered into a 2012 development agreement with a Village to, among other things, purchase property and grade it for the Village’s later use. The agreement required the developer to transfer the property to the Village within three years. This development agreement resulted in years of litigation between the parties, which recently resulted in an Appellate Court decision on the issue of damages for the breach of contract claims. PML Development, LLC v. Village of Hawthorn Woods.

In 2015, the developer filed a lawsuit against the Village claiming that while it was working on the property, the Village issued restricting permits and stop-work orders while it developed a plan for its use of the property, which it claims interfered with the work on the property and caused it to incur additional costs. The Village filed a counterclaim against the developer, alleging that the developer failed to repair the road leading to the property, failed to pay taxes on the property, and the failure to fund the project draw-down account.

In 2020, the trial court found both parties in material breach of the agreement and both parties appealed. In a previous ruling, the Appellate Court agreed that both parties were in breach but held that neither was entitled to damages. The case made its way to the Illinois Supreme Court, which held that both parties alleged viable breach of contract claims and remanded the case back to the trial court to hear and decide the parties' damages claims. We reported on the previous Appellate Court decision here and the Illinois Supreme Court's decision here. 

On remand from the Illinois Supreme Court, the trial court awarded $5,349,677.70 to the developer for costs incurred as a result of the Village’s interference with the development, and $408,000.00 to the Village for the developer’s failure to fund the draw-down account and the failure to repair the road. The developer was awarded attorneys fees for the initial proceedings, but the court denied the request for additional fees. Both parties appealed.

On appeal, the Village contends the developer was not entitled to any damages because it did not establish damages to a reasonable degree of certainty because it had no history of profits. The Appellate Court reviewed the developer’s expert witness testimony and held that the damages were not based entirely on speculation and the calculations were credible. The Village also argued that the trial court erred because it did not award damages for the developer’s failure to convey the property. The Appellate Court held that the Village was not entitled to these damages because it did not pursue monetary damages on this issue until the final appeal.

The developer argued it was improperly denied damages related to overhead costs because of the Village’s delay. However, at trial, multiple witnesses recognized that even if everything had gone according to the plan the project would not have been completed by December 31, 2015. The Appellate Court upheld the trial court’s decision because the damages the developer sought were not reasonably certain.

Finally, both parties challenged the award of attorney fees. The trial court had ruled that the developer was the prevailing party at the first trial, but neither of the parties were prevailing at the following hearings. The Appellate Court did not agree with the trial court's ruling and held that the developer was the prevailing party entitled to all reasonable costs associated with all of the stages of this case.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Court Dismisses Electoral Board Appeal for Improper Service

Court Dismisses Electoral Board Appeal for Improper Service

  Monday, March 31, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In November 2024, a candidate for the position of School Board Member (Candidate) filed a statement of candidacy which affirmed that her residence was within the School District. A resident of the School District (Objector) objected to the Candidate’s nominating papers, alleging that her address was incorrect and that she resided outside of the District, making her ineligible for a School Board Member position.

The Objector requested that the Electoral Board find that the Candidate was ineligible to appear on the April 2025 ballot. At the Electoral Board hearing, the Candidate moved to dismiss the objection claiming the objection failed to state an “interest” as required by the relevant statute. In response, the Objector argued that being a resident of the School District was enough of an interest to satisfy the requirement. Because the statute required a statement of interest, and the objection failed to state an interest, the Electoral Board granted the Candidate’s motion, dismissing the objection.

The Objector appealed the Board’s decision, arguing that the objection included the Objector's status as a resident of the School District, so no further information was required. The trial court ruled in favor of the Candidate, finding it did not have jurisdiction over the case because the Objector failed to send certified copies of the petition to the parties as required by statute. The trial court also addressed the merits of the appeal, affirming the Electoral Board’s decision dismissing the objection as not “clearly erroneous.”

The Objector appealed that decision, and the Appellate Court also held that the court had no jurisdiction over the appeal because the Objector failed to comply with the service requirements of state law. Although the Objector stated in the petition for review that he served the parties by registered or certified mail, the evidence showed he only sent it by regular mail, which was not sufficient under the statute. As a result, the Appellate Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, vacated the portion of the opinion that addressed the merits of the appeal, and affirmed the Electoral Board’s decision dismissing the objection. Mosley v. Holbrook, 2025 IL App (5th) 250096-U

Note that the Petitioner also filed identical objections against two other School Board Member Candidates for living outside the School District. The trial court in all three cases reached the same result – dismissing the objections because the Petitioner failed to state an “interest” on his objection. It was also the same result on appeal in all three cases – dismissal for improper service after the Petitioner sent his petitions for review by regular mail rather than certified mail. Mosley v. Holbrook, 2025 IL App (5th) 250097-U; Mosley v. Holbrook, 2025 IL App (5th) 250098-U.

Post Authored by Rachel Defries & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

City's Designation of Historic District Upheld by Appellate Court

City's Designation of Historic District Upheld by Appellate Court

  Tuesday, March 25, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In 2007, the Chicago City Council adopted an ordinance designating an area of the City as the Arlington-Deming Historic District. That ordinance was challenged in court on various grounds, including that it violated a property owner's due process and equal protection rights and that it was arbitrary and capricious and did not meet the "rational basis" test for legislative decision. Litigation continued for almost 20 years, resulting in numerous trial court and appellate court rulings on various claims in the lawsuit. The last of the remaining claims in the lawsuit were the subject of a trial court ruling that upheld the City's designation of the historic district, and that decision was recently the subject of a decision by the Illinois Appellate Court. Robinson v. City of Chicago, 2025 IL App (1st) 232174.

On March 24, 2025, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's ruling in favor of the City, upholding the ordinance designating the historic district. First, the Court held that the City has a legitimate government interest in preserving historic properties and areas and that the City's decision to designate this area as an historic district "bears a rational relationship" to that purpose. As a result, the Court held that the City's designation ordinance satisfied the "rational basis" test for a legislative decision. The Court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the ordinance should be invalidated because the City allegedly failed to follow its own standards in designating the district, holding that an ordinance of a home rule municipality is not invalid for failure to follow self-imposed standards. The Court also rejected plaintiff's argument that the LaSalle factors test (which applies to challenges to zoning decisions) should have been used in this case, finding that the LaSalle factors did not apply to this challenge of historic district designation.

In sum, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the City on all remaining claims in this lawsuit, upholding the designation of this historic district.

Disclaimer: Ancel Glink represented the City at the summary judgment phase at the trial court in this case.

Read More

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Tax Misallocation Dispute

Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Tax Misallocation Dispute

  Thursday, March 20, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Last year we reported on an Illinois Appellate Court decision in a tax allocation dispute between two municipalities where sales tax revenues generated from a restaurant located in the Village of Arlington Heights (Village) were mistakenly paid to the City of Rolling Meadows (City) for almost a decade. In January of last year, the Appellate Court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the case because the trial court did have jurisdiction to hear and decide this dispute.  

That ruling was subsequently appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court, which issued a decision this week reversing the Appellate Court and upholding the trial court's previous dismissal of the Village's lawsuit against the City. The Illinois Supreme Court determined that the Illinois Department of Revenue has exclusive jurisdiction over tax matters, including misallocation disputes, so the trial court's dismissal of the Village's case against the City for lack of jurisdiction was proper. Village of Arlington Heights v. City of Rolling Meadows.

Read More

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Push Tax Ordinance

Illinois Appellate Court Upholds Push Tax Ordinance

  Monday, March 17, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In Illinois Gaming Machine Operators v. The City of Waukegan, the Illinois Gaming Machine Operators Association (IGMOA) and a group of plaintiffs sued the City to challenge an ordinance that imposed a one cent tax per push (push tax) on players of video game terminals. The City’s push tax ordinance required every terminal operator (a company that leases video gaming machines to bars or restaurants) to register as a tax collector and imposed a duty to secure the tax from their customers. The trial court upheld the ordinance and ruled that it was a permissible use of municipal authority. 

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the City's ordinance, rejecting the terminal operators' challenge.

First, the Appellate Court ruled that the push tax ordinance did not impose an unconstitutional occupation tax because the tax burden rested solely on the player and could not be transferred to the terminal operator.

Second, the Court ruled the push tax ordinance was not a license for revenue because enforcement provisions only imposed penalties and merely ensured compliance.

Third, the Court ruled that the ordinance did not contradict the uniformity clause of the Illinois constitution that requires taxes to be uniformly imposed across classes of goods. The terminal operators had argued that because the ordinance only imposed taxes on push machines, and not on automatic machines, the ordinance violated this clause. The court rejected that argument, finding that the City had provided sufficient justification for the ordinance and imposition of the push tax.

Finally, the Court ruled that the tax collection mechanism did not exceed the City’s home-rule authority. The terminal operators had argued the funds inserted into the gaming machines were outside of the City’s grasp because they did not pertain to the City’s government and affairs. The Court discussed the different ways the tax could be collected and ultimately ruled that there are permissible mechanisms for the City to collect the tax funds.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Appellate Court Holds City did not Owe a Duty of Care to an Injured Motorcyclist

Appellate Court Holds City did not Owe a Duty of Care to an Injured Motorcyclist

  Friday, March 14, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In Calhoun v. City of Evanston, a motorcyclist sued the City after crashing his motorcycle on the base of a crosswalk sign. The sign had become detached from the base, leaving only a small, elevated platform. The motorcyclist struck this platform and suffered a broken leg and injured wrist.

The motorcyclist filed a negligence complaint against the City claiming the City did not properly remove or warn people of the hazard. The trial court held that 1) the City did not owe the motorcyclist a duty, 2) the base of the crosswalk sign was not hazardous, 3) the base of the crosswalk sign was an open and obvious danger, and 4) the City was immune under the Tort Immunity Act.

The Appellate Court also ruled in favor of the City, finding that the City did not owe the motorcyclist a duty because it did not have notice of the hazard. The motorcyclist had claimed that the City had notice because one of the responding officers allegedly agreed that the crosswalk base was a hazard, and the City should have fixed it. The Appellate Court considered this but ultimately held that the police officer’s statement did prove the City had actual notice of the hazard because there were no records of the hazard in the City’s files.

In the alternative, the motorcyclist alleged that the City should have known of the hazard because it was plainly visible. While the Appellate Court agreed that the hazard was visible, the crosswalk base was less than 2 inches tall and only posed a small threat of harm. 

Because the motorcyclist could not establish that the City had notice of the alleged hazardous condition, and the condition did not pose a substantial risk of harm, the City was not liable for the injury. 

Post Authored by Alexis Carter & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Clerk's Refusal to Certify Candidate's Nomination Papers

Court Dismisses Lawsuit Challenging Clerk's Refusal to Certify Candidate's Nomination Papers

  Thursday, March 13, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In November 2024, an independent candidate for Mayor (Candidate) filed his nomination papers for the Consolidated Election with the Village Clerk. After a lottery was held to determine the Candidate’s ballot position, the Clerk notified the Candidate that his name would not be certified to the ballot, because the Candidate’s papers were not in “apparent conformity” with the requirements of the Election Code. Specifically, the Clerk informed the Candidate that he would not be certified to the ballot because he was also running for the office of Trustee of the South Suburban College Board, and the two offices e were incompatible.

The Candidate filed a lawsuit asking the court to order the Clerk to certify his name to the ballot. The Candidate claimed the Clerk had a “duty” to certify his name to the ballot, because he properly filed his nomination papers. The Clerk asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that the Candidate failed to establish the 3 key elements of a claim for mandamus: (1) a clear right to relief, (2) a clear duty of the Clerk to act, and (3) clear authority for the Clerk to comply with the requested mandamus order.

At the court hearing, the Candidate claimed the Clerk exceeded his authority by evaluating issues beyond the “apparent conformity” of his candidate papers (i.e., looked outside the candidate's filing). Because the issue of office compatibility was not within the Clerk’s power to evaluate, the Candidate argued the Clerk erred by refusing to certify the Candidate’s name to the ballot. 

The trial court granted the Clerk's motion to dismiss the case and the Candidate appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Court noted that in order state a viable claim for mandamus, the Candidate had to establish the 3 elements for mandamus, which the Appellate Court determined he failed to do. For example, the Court held that the Candidate failed to allege facts showing that he filed his nomination papers as required by the Election Code, or that his papers were in “apparent conformity” with the Election Code. Without these facts in his complaint to show he had a clear right to relief, the Appellate Court held that the Candidate could not show that the Clerk had a duty to certify his name to the ballot. As a result, the Appellate Court upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss his complaint. The Appellate Court did not assess the “apparent conformity” issue, or whether the offices sought by the Candidate were incompatible. Solomon v. Wiseman. 

Post Authored by Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep 91: New Developments in Planning Caselaw

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep 91: New Developments in Planning Caselaw

  Thursday, March 06, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast just released Episode 91: New Developments in Planning Caselaw. 

Recently, Ancel Glink attorneys Megan Mack, Erin Monforti, and Katie Nagy participated in the Planning Webcast Series hosted by the Ohio chapter of the American Planning Association and presented by the Illinois chapter. The session covers key cases impacting local governments and planning professionals, ranging from regulatory takings and impact fees to group homes, zoning regulations, and homelessness. 

You can listen to this new podcast here.

Read More

Court Finds that Firefighter/Paramedic Entitled to PSEBA Benefits

Court Finds that Firefighter/Paramedic Entitled to PSEBA Benefits

  Wednesday, February 26, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In a recent case involving an interpretation of the Public Safety Employee Benefits Act (PSEBA), the Appellate Court held that a municipality should have granted PSEBA benefits to a firefighter/paramedic. Ford v. Village of Northbrook.

A firefighter/paramedic was injured while transferring a patient to the hospital after responding to a call for service. He applied for, and was granted, a line-of-duty disability pension. Subsequently, he applied for PSEBA benefits, which provide health insurance benefits to public safety employees who meet a two part test. First, the employee must have suffered a catastrophic injury in the line-of-duty and second, that injury must have occured as the result of: (1) the officer's response to fresh pursuit; (2) the officer or firefigher's response to what is reasonably believed to be an emergency; (3) an unlawful act perpetrated by another; or (4) during the investigation of a criminal act.

The municipality denied the PSEBA application, finding that although the firefighter/paramedic did meet the first part of the test (that he had suffered a catastrophic injury since he was awarded a line-of-duty disability), the municipality determined that he did not suffer his injury as the result of responding to an emergency.

The firefighter/paramedic filed an appeal of the municipality's decision with the circuit court, which found the municipality's decision to be in error and that he was entitled to PSEBA benefits.

On appeal to the Appellate Court, the Court agreed with the circuit court that the municipality should have granted PSEBA benefits to the firefighter/paramedic. The Court held that the call was assigned priority 1 by dispatch, the patient was observed to be too weak to stand, presented with pale skin, was on numerous medications, and was given oxygen, all of which could support a reasonable belief by the firefighter/paramedic that he was faced with an emergency. The Court rejected the municipality's argument that even if there had been an emergency, that no longer existed at the time of transfer of the patient, which was when the injury occurred. 

In conclusion, the Court found that the firefighter/paramedic was injured as a result of his response to what he reasonably believed to be an emergency and, therefore, was entitled to PSEBA benefits.

Read More

Candidate's Appeal Dismissed For Failure to Serve Petition on Individual Electoral Board Members

Candidate's Appeal Dismissed For Failure to Serve Petition on Individual Electoral Board Members

  Tuesday, February 25, 2025    Julie Tappendorf

---

In a recent judicial appeal to an Electoral Board decision that struck a candidate from the ballot, the Illinois Appellate Court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the candidate failed to serve a copy of the judicial petition on the individual members of the Electoral Board. Williams v. Municipal Officers Electoral Board.

The Appellate Court noted that the service requirement of Section 10-10.1(a) was amended in 2024. The new language requires the party seeking judicial review of an Electoral Board decision to serve a copy of the petition "upon each of the respondents named in the petition for judicial review..." The "respondents" are identified in that Section as "the electoral board, its members, and the prevailing candidates or objectors in the initial proceeding before the [Electoral Board]."

Although the candidate did serve the objector and the Electoral Board, she did not serve the petition on each of the individual members of the Electoral Board. The Court found that to be fatal to her judicial appeal, holding that the General Assembly's amendment to the service requirement expressly requires that service of the judicial petition be made on each individual member of the Electoral Board, and not just on the Board itself.

Read More