Appellate Court Addresses Claims Against Municipality by Tree Vendor

Appellate Court Addresses Claims Against Municipality by Tree Vendor

  Tuesday, February 17, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court dismissed most of the claims in a lawsuit filed by a vendor against a municipality, although it allowed an unjust enrichment claim and a fradulent misrepresentation claim to move forward in the circuit court. Johns Pro-Tree Service v. Village of Dolton.

A mayor and two village public works employees reached out to the president of a tree service company for emergency tree trimming and removal service related to a storm in June 2023. After the parties agreed to a price, the tree company completed the work. Subsequently, the parties agreed to continue the services to the village, and the village paid the full invoice amount. On September 25th, the company submitted another invoice for their work, but was told that none of the village’s vendors would be paid for their recent work due to budget restrictions. The company filed a lawsuit against the village claiming breach of contract, a violation of the Local Government Prompt Payment Act, fraudulent misrepresentation, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel. The circuit court dismissed the case in its entirety, finding that the village was immune from liability and the alleged contract was not enforceable because it had not been approved or ratified by the village's board of trustees.

On appeal, the Appellate Court upheld the circuit court's dismissal of the breach of contract, Prompt Payment Act, quantum meruit, and promissory estoppel claims. 

On the breach of contract claim, the Appellate Court held that the complaint did not show that the contract was approved by the board of trustees or that the board had delegated contracting authority to the mayor or other officials or otherwise authorized the contract with the tree service contract. As a result, the tree service company's claim that the village had breached a contract with the company was properly dismissed by the circuit court. 

The Appellate Court also held that because the breach of contract claim was properly dismissed, the Local Government Payment Act claim was also properly dismissed.

On the company's quantum meruit claim, the Appellate Court found that the allegations in the complaint were insufficient to show that the board of trustees authorized the proper officials to accept or approve the terms of the transaction with the tree service company.

The Appellate Court also upheld the dismissal of the company's promissory estoppel claim finding that the company did not establish that the representatives of the village involved with the tree company had authority to make any representations or promises to the company.

However, the Appellate Court disagreed with the circuit court on the dismissal of the fraudulent misrepresentation claim, finding that the village did not meet the burden of proof by showing they were immune under the Tort Immunity Act. 

The Court also disagreed with the dismissal of the tree company's unjust enrichment claim, finding that this claim was adequately pled in the complaint to survive a dismissal.

As a result, the Court sent the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings on the company's fraudulent mispresentation and unjust enrichment claims.

Post Authored by Natalie Cheung & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Appellate Court Upholds Demolition Order But Limits Municipal Fines

Appellate Court Upholds Demolition Order But Limits Municipal Fines

  Thursday, February 12, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

In County of DuPage v. Arjmand, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld a demolition order issued by a circuit court in favor of a county, but reversed portions of the circuit court's order imposing fines on the property owner.

A property owner owned a partially constructed and vacant property. According to the county, the property contained numerous unsafe and hazardous conditions, including broken windows, graffiti, mold, and structural issues, and became a site for trespassing and other illicit activities. After the owner failed to address all of the code issues, the county filed a complaint against the owner alleging that the residence was an unsafe structure, public nuisance, lacked a valid building permit, and violated various provisions of the International Property Maintenance Code.

The circuit court ruled in favor of the county on all counts in 2021 and issued a demolition order for 2022. The court also imposed fines, fees, and costs against the property owner. The owner appealed, raising four issues on appeal: (1) the validity of demolition order, (2) the grant of summary judgment in favor of the county, (3) the validity of the imposed fines, and (4) the trial judge’s refusal to recuse himself.

The Appellate Court upheld the demolition order in favor of the county, finding that despite the owner taking some remedial measures, the property remained dangerous and unsafe, and the owner had more than reasonable time to repair the property. 

As to the owner's appeal of the fines imposed by the court, the Appellate Court determined that fines for ordinance violations must be calculated for violations up to the date of the court order, not after the order is issued. The court also rejected the issuance of prejudgment fines on certain of the counts and sent the case back to the circuit court for further proceedings.

The Appellate Court also rejected the property owner's claim that the judge should have recused himself.

Post Authored by Luigi Laudando & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

PAC Finds FOIA Violation in Response to Request for Termination Letter

PAC Finds FOIA Violation in Response to Request for Termination Letter

  Wednesday, February 11, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

A reporter submitted a FOIA request to a State's Attorney's Office (SAO) seeking records about a former SAO employee who was terminated and criminally charged for alleged misconduct while working at the SAO. The SAO withheld a responsive termination letter on the basis that the letter, if disclosed, would interfere with a pending criminal prosecution and picking of a jury.

After the requester submitted a request for review with the Illinois Attorney General’s Public Access Counselor (PAC), the PAC issued its second binding opinion of 2026 concluding that the SAO improperly withheld the termination letter. PAC Op. 26-002.

First, the PAC determined that FOIA’s investigatory exemptions in Section 7(1)(d) only apply to records either (1) created in the course of administrative enforcement proceedings, or (2) if the record is maintained by a correctional or law enforcement agency for law enforcement purposes. In this case, the PAC determined that the termination letter was not created during the course in the course of an administrative enforcement proceeding. The PAC also determined that the letter was not a record maintained by the SAO "for law enforcement purposes,” because the letter was a personnel record created by the SAO to document a former employee’s termination. Because the withheld letter was not a record maintained by the SAO "for law enforcement purposes,” the PAC determined that FOIA’s investigatory exemptions in Sections 7(1)(d)(i) and 7(1)(d)(iii) did not apply to allow the SAO to withhold the record.

Second, the PAC determined that the SAO did not demonstrate that disclosing the letter would interfere with law enforcement proceedings or create a substantial likelihood that a person would be deprived of a fair trial or impartial hearing. Although the SAO argued that the court had not yet ruled on the admissibility of information in the letter, the PAC reasoned that FOIA does not provide a blanket exemption for records that may contain information that may be inadmissible in court. The PAC found that the SAO did not illustrate that revealing previously undisclosed information in the letter is likely to garner intense pre-trial publicity that could taint the pool of potential jurors in the county. Even if some potential jurors were exposed to the letter, the PAC argued that the SAO could use judicial safeguards, like voir dire, to identify and exclude potential jurors whose knowledge of relevant information may taint their impartiality. While the letter contains allegations that have not been publicly disseminated or reported on, the PAC reasoned that disclosing the letter would not interfere with the prosecution of the former SAO employee, because it does not contain highly specific details (e.g., identities of witnesses, sensitive details that would materially impact witness testimony, or evidentiary proof or sources of evidence) that would interfere with a law enforcement proceeding.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

Read More

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 101 - Navigating AI's Impact on the Modern Workplace

Quorum Forum Podcast Ep. 101 - Navigating AI's Impact on the Modern Workplace

  Tuesday, February 10, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

Ancel Glink's Quorum Forum Podcast just released Episode 101 featuring Mysi Hall's recent ILCMA presentation, “Digital Decisions: Navigating AI’s Impact on the Modern Workplace.” In this podcast, Mysi examines the current legal landscape surrounding the use of artificial intelligence in labor relations and employment practices.

Highlights:

• The Legal Landscape: Overview of federal and state regulations, including EEOC guidelines on Title VII and the ADA.
• Illinois Specifics: A look at the AI Video Interview Act (AIVIA) and the 2026 amendments to the Illinois Human Rights Act.
• Bias and Mitigation: Understanding automation bias, selective adherence, and real-world examples of algorithmic discrimination.
• Labor Relations: How major unions (ILA, SAG-AFTRA, AFL-CIO) are negotiating AI safeguards and transparency.
• Best Practices: Practical steps for employers, including the NIST Risk Management Framework and the importance of human oversight.

Read More

Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act’s Impact on Units of Local Government and Road Districts

Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act’s Impact on Units of Local Government and Road Districts

  Thursday, February 05, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

On January 8, 2026, Governor Pritzker signed the Clean and Reliable Grid Affordability Act (CRGA) into law. With an effective date of June 1, 2026, the Act brings several changes to state energy policy intended to develop new energy resources.

The Act amends state statute to restrict the ability of units of local government and road districts to impose fees, fines, or other payment obligations for road use agreements with a commercial wind energy facility or a commercial solar energy facility owner (including the facility developer).

Previously, Section 5-12020 of the Counties Code stated that road-related fees, permit fees, or other charges imposed under a road use agreement must be reasonably related to the administration cost of such agreement.

Under the new amendment, a road district or other unit of local government is prohibited from requiring any permit fees, fines, or other payment obligations as a condition of a road use agreement, unless the reasonable permit fee or payment obligation reflects the actual expenses incurred. These expenses must relate to the negotiation, execution, construction, or implementation of the road use agreement.

The new amendment also prohibits a road use agreement from requiring a facility owner to pay or perform any road work that is not specifically and uniquely related to the road improvements required for the facility or the restoration of roads used by the facility owner during construction-related activities. 

In effect, the Act constrains the scope of road use agreements and the ability of units of local government and road districts to impose fees related to commercial alternative energy facilities. However, Section 5-12020 of the Counties Code does not expressly provide that it is a denial and limitation on home rule powers and functions.

Authored by Luigi Laudando and Katie Nagy, Ancel Glink

  

Read More

More Bills Introduced in General Assembly to Amend FOIA

More Bills Introduced in General Assembly to Amend FOIA

  Wednesday, February 04, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

On January 20th, we reported on a number of bills introduced in the Illinois General Assembly this term that would, if approved, amend various provisions of FOIA. Since that post, the General Assembly has been quite busy and has introduced many more bills that propose to amend FOIA, many of which appear to be designed to address the recent proliferation of "mass" requests submitted by organizations that seek the same records from numerous numerous public bodies. 

HB 4597: If approved, this bill would amend FOIA to authorize a public body to impose a fee on a requester for staff time incurred in redacting body camera recordings, at the lowest paid employee's pay rate. The bill has some exceptions where a fee may not be imposed, including (1) where the requester certifies that it will not use the recording for financial purposes; or (2) the requester is involved in the incident; or (3) the recording depicts an officer-involved shooting; or (4) the public body fails to provide the requester with an estimate of the applicable fees as required by the bill.

HB  4681: If approved, this bill would amend FOIA to add provisions relating to "mass" requesters and "vexatious" requesters and expand the definition of "commercial" requester. The bill would also require requesters to notify the public body before filing a lawsuit against the public body for an alleged violation of FOIA. The bill would provide a process for public bodies to petition the Public Access Counselor of the Attorney Generals Office (PAC) for relief from "vexatious" requesters, and also provide additional time to respond to "mass" requesters.

HB 4682: If approved, this bill would amend FOIA to provide that repeated requests for commercial purposes are deemed unduly burdensome if the reuqests are from the same person and seek similar or updated records.

HB 4683: If approved, this bill would amend FOIA to add language regarding "mass" requesters and provide additional time for the public body to respond to requests from requesters that fall into that category. 

HB 4684: If approved, this bill would amend FOIA to modify the definition of "commercial purpose" and add a new provision for "purposeless mass requests."

HB 4704: If approved, this bill would amend the Student Confidentiality Reporting Act and FOIA to prohibit the release of information submitted to school helplines.

SB 3218: If approved, this bill would amend FOIA to modify provisions relating to law enforcement and arrest and booking records, increase the allowable fee for copies from 15 cents to 25 cents, and modify the amount public bodies can charge for staff time in searching for and retrieving records requested for commercial purposes.

None of these bills have passed yet, but we will keep you posted if any of these move forward.

Read More

Seventh Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity to Police Officers

Seventh Circuit Grants Qualified Immunity to Police Officers

  Tuesday, February 03, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

In Johnson v. Edwards, an arrestee sued four police officers alleging they violated his constitutional rights after he was arrested for disorderly conduct. 

Johnson was arrested after he attempted to enter an area that had been taped off for police investigation of a crime scene. When the police officers ordered Johnson to leave the area, he became agitated and began to yell at the officers. Johnson refused to leave and the officers arrested Johnson, put him in the squad car, and drove him to the police station. Johnson had refused to wear his seatbelt on the drive there. On the way there, Johnson asked the officer to slow down. The officer quickly slowed the car down to stop at a red light which caused Johnson to lurch forward and hit his head on the divider. Two minutes later, when they arrived at the station, the officers realized Johnson had been knocked unconscious. He was taken to the hospital where he was diagnosed and treated for a cut lip.

Johnson was charged with disorderly conduct for failing to obey a police officer. After the charges were dropped, he sued the officers involved in his arrest, claiming the following constitutional violations: (1) false arrest in violation of the Fourth Amendment; (2) state-created danger in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause; (3) excessive use of force for the “rough ride” to the station; (4) failure to provide adequate medical care. Johnson also brought a claim for malicious prosecution. The district court ruled in favor of the police officers, finding they were immune from Johnson’s claims based on qualified immunity. 

On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ruling in favor of the officers. The Seventh Circuit found that Johnson had not established a violation of his constitutional rights because: (1) the officers had probable cause to arrest Johnson for engaging in disorderly conduct when he refused to leave the crime scene; (2) the officers had not placed Johnson in a position of danger, or violated an established constitutional right, by allowing him to ride to the station without a seatbelt on; (3) the facts did not support a finding that the ride to the station constituted an excessive use of force; and (4) the officers had called the paramedics as soon as they realized Johnson was hurt, so Johnson could not establish that they acted unreasonably. Because Johnson failed to establish a violation of a constitutional right, the Seventh Circuit found the officers were entitled to qualified immunity for their actions.

As to Johnson’s malicious prosecution claim, the Court found that the officers had probable cause to arrest Johnson for disorderly conduct and dismissed this claim.

Post Authored by Alexis Carter

Read More

Court Finds Response to FOIA Request That Was Quarantined by Email Service Untimely

Court Finds Response to FOIA Request That Was Quarantined by Email Service Untimely

  Monday, February 02, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court recently issued an opinion on the timeliness of FOIA responses where a request is quarantined by a public body's email software service. Balzer v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation.

On July 31st, a requester emailed a FOIA request to the public body's FOIA officer seeking various contract records. However, the FOIA officer did not learn about the FOIA request until the next business day because the public body’s third-party email software service (Mimecast) flagged the email as suspicious and quarantined the FOIA request in its security queue. On August 1st, Mimecast sent the public body’s FOIA account a notification that the FOIA request was held in queue, and the public body’s FOIA officer received the FOIA request that day. The public body reached out to the requester on August 1st to ask the requester to narrow the request because it was unduly burdensome. The requester refused to narrow the request, and the public body formally denied the FOIA request as unduly burdensome pursuant to Section 3(g) of FOIA on August 8th, the sixth business day after the request was sent, but only the fifth business day after the FOIA officer became aware of it.

The requester sued the public body, claiming the public body’s response was untimely. The circuit court ruled in favor of the public body, finding that FOIA’s five-business-day response window only begins when the public body actually receives and acknowledges receipt, which according to the circuit court meant that the response was due on August 8th.

However, on appeal, the Appellate Court ruled in favor of the requester, finding that the public body received the request on July 31st (the day that Mimecast received the request and quarantined it), so the public body's August 8th response was untimely under FOIA. 

The Appellate Court acknowledged that FOIA does not define when a FOIA request is deemed received by a public body. However, the Court found that the request at issue was “received” by the public body when Mimecast received it on July 31st, regardless of whether Mimecast or the public body were aware of it, and regardless of whether Mimecast was operated by a third-party rather than by the public body. The Appellate Court held that FOIA does not "toll" a public body’s five-business-day response obligation because a system that the public body itself created or adopted caused an internal delay in a request reaching its FOIA officer, so the public body’s August 8th denial of the request was untimely.

The Appellate Court also held that the public body waived its ability to deny the request as unduly burdensome pursuant to Section 3(g) of FOIA because its response was untimely.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov & Julie Tappendorf, Ancel Glink

Read More

Ancel Glink at the IAPD/IPRA 2026 Conference

Ancel Glink at the IAPD/IPRA 2026 Conference

  Wednesday, January 28, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

For all of our park officials and employee readers who will be in attendance at the IAPD/IPRA conference this week, we hope you can stop by one or more of the sessions at which Ancel Glink attorneys will be presenting:

Thursday, 1/29/2026

1 - 2 pm - Session 112 - Real Estate 101, Scott Puma & David Silverman (Ancel Glink)

1 - 2 pm - Session 120 - Can We and Should We Have Video Surveillance in Parks & Facilities?, Megan Mack & Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

1 - 2 pm - Session 126 - From Ballot To Victory: Strategies for Successful Referendums, Keri-Lyn Krafthefer (Ancel Glink), Lauren Raspanti & Paul Henley

Friday, 1/30/2026

8:30 - 9:30 am - Session 110 - Legal/Legislative I, Derke Price (Ancel Glink) & Jason Anselment

3:30 - 4:30 pm - Session 119 - Regulating Controversial Park Activities, Eugene Bolotnikov, Katie Nagy & Tyler Smith (Ancel Glink)

Saturday, 1/31/2026

10:45 - 11:45 am - Session 115 - Be Prepared for Your First Amendment Audits, Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink)

10:45 - 11:45 am - Session 118 - Park District Finance - It's Not Intuitive, Adam Simon (Ancel Glink) & Mari-Lynn Peters

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 116 - Understanding Social Media: Facebook? Instagram? X?, Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink)

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 131 - Solar and Green Energy Options, Adam Simon (Ancel Glink), Erik Brown & Shawn Ajazi

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 133 - Managing Teen Takeover Events: Strategies, Challenges, and Collaborative Solutions, Derke Price (Ancel Glink) & Chief Steven Schindlbeck

12:30 - 1:30 pm - Session 129 - Boardmanship Essentials Part I, Scott Puma (Ancel Glink)

2 - 3 pm - Session 130 - Boardmanship Essentials Part II, Adam Simon (Ancel Glink)

2 - 3 pm - Session 122 - You Really Should Read Your Board Policy Manual (And Keep It Updated), Scott Puma & Erin Monforti (Ancel Glink)

2 - 3 pm - Session 128 - Parks Role in Successful Planning and Economic Development, David Silverman (Ancel Glink), Dan Bolin (Ancel Glink) & Jodi Mariano

Read More

Fourth Circuit Denies Injunctive Relief for Public Comment Interruptions

Fourth Circuit Denies Injunctive Relief for Public Comment Interruptions

  Tuesday, January 27, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on public comment at meetings in Platt v. Mansfield. Although the Fourth Circuit does not cover Illinois so this ruling is not binding on Illinois government bodies, the case is interesting because it provides a different perspective from the recent Public Access Counselor ruling (PAC Op. 26-001) that we reported on recently that struck down a public comment policy that prohibited comments that attacked public employees or officials.

The case involved a school board that offered an opportunity for public comment at its school board meetings pursuant to a school board policy. That policy prohibited public comment that targets, criticizes, or attacks individual students at meetings, and stated that these type of concerns must be raised privately to the appropriate school official. A group of individuals attended a school board meeting to express their concerns about a student who had been arrested for threats to another classmate, and claimed they were interrupted or not allowed to speak after the board ended the public comment period because of the content of their speech. They filed a lawsuit against the school board claiming that the school board discriminated against their viewpoint and that the board's public comment policy was unconstitutionally vague in violation of their free speech rights under the First Amendment. The district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, and they appealed.

On appeal, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the denial of injunctive relief, finding that the plaintiffs did not establish a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits of their claims to support their request for a preliminary injunction. The Court found that the public comment period of the school board meeting was a "limited public forum" and the school board had the right to establish content-neutral restrictions on the speach presented during that public comment period so long as those restrictions were not discriminatorily applied. The Court determined that the school board only interrupted speakers when they violated the school board's policy that prohibits comments that critized an individual student. The Court rejected the speakers' argument that they were discriminated against, finding that the interruptions during their comments were for violations of a facially constitutional speech policy. 

Read More

Court Finds City Immune from Lawsuit in Case Involving Missing Person

Court Finds City Immune from Lawsuit in Case Involving Missing Person

  Monday, January 26, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

An Illinois Appellate Court determined that a municipality had immunity from a lawsuit brought by a mother who claimed she suffered emotional distress caused by the municipality's failure to assist her in locating her missing daughter. Specifically, the court held that the city had immunity from liability for "failure to provide adequate police protection or service" under section 4-102 of the Tort Immunity Act. Bailey v. City of Chicago.

A mother called 911 to report her daughter missing after she went to her daycare center and the child was missing. She also asked the police to issue an Amber Alert. No police met with her at the daycare and no Amber Alert was issued, although her daughter was found about two hours after she was reported missing. The mother filed a lawsuit against the city claiming the city breached a duty of care. After the circuit court dismissed the complaint and denied her request to amend the complaint, she appealed to the Appellate Court, which upheld the circuit court's ruling, finding that her claims were barred by the Tort Immunity Act.

Read More

PAC Finds OMA Violation for Restriction on Public Comment at Meeting

PAC Finds OMA Violation for Restriction on Public Comment at Meeting

  Thursday, January 22, 2026    Julie Tappendorf

---

The Public Access Counselor of the Illinois Attorney General's Office (PAC) issued its first binding opinion of 2026 finding a public body in violation of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (OMA) by limiting a speaker during public comment. PAC Op. 26-001. 

An individual filed a request for review with the PAC claiming that a public body violated the OMA when the mayor interrupted her during her public comment before the village board at its meeting. Specifically, she claims the mayor told her she could not say the names of village trustees, turned off the audio system and had the microphone removed, tried to cut her off before her 3 minutes were up, and asked the police chief to remove her from the meeting. 

In response, the village board defended its actions, arguing that its public comment rules and Roberts Rules of Order allowed the mayor to enforce rules of decorum to avoid disruptions and maintain order at village meetings.

The PAC acknowledged that a public body could terminate "inflammatory comments" that cause disruption in order to ensure that its meetings can be conducted in an efficient manner. However, the PAC determined that this speaker had not made inflammatory comments and that any disruption to the meeting was created by the mayor improperly interfering with the speaker's right to address the board during public comment. The PAC also noted that the village board's public comment rules did not restrict speakers from naming village officials or employees during public comment, and questioned whether this type of rule would be consistent with the OMA. The PAC also suggested this type of rule could be unconstitutional if it was intended to censor protected critical speech against a public official. Because the speaker did not disrupt the meeting, the PAC determined that the village board's restrictions on her speech violated 2.06(g) of OMA (the provision of OMA that requires public bodies to provide members of the public with an opportunity to address the public body at its meetings).

Read More