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