The case involved an Illinois corporation that held a long-term lease on downtown Chicago property and sought to enjoin the county collector from selling the property for unpaid 1974 real estate taxes of about $80,000, alleging gross overassessment and violations of the state constitution's uniformity, due process, and equal protection provisions. The plaintiff had filed parallel federal suits, explicitly reserved all federal constitutional claims for federal courts, and declined to pay any portion of the taxes under protest as required by statute for judicial review. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed, holding that it lacked authority under the state constitution to adjudicate the issues because the plaintiff's strategy rendered any state-court judgment non-final and advisory in nature, effectively making the state courts a mere adjunct to the federal proceedings.
This case concerned the validity of ordinances passed by the city council of Berwyn and the board of trustees of Oak Lawn, both home rule municipalities, that transferred to the legislative bodies the power to appoint and remove certain municipal officers such as the superintendent of streets, commissioner of public works, and city collector. The trial court ruled in favor of the mayors and clerks, holding that appointment and removal powers belonged solely to the executive, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed those judgments. The court reasoned that under sections 6(a) and 6(f) of article VII of the 1970 Illinois Constitution, a home rule unit may exercise powers pertaining to its government and affairs, but changes to the form of government or the manner of selection of officers require either referendum approval or authorization by state law, which the ordinances lacked. The court rejected arguments that home rule authority permitted unilateral legislative assumption of these powers and also denied the plaintiffs' requests for attorney fees against the legislators or municipalities.
The case involved a claim by Edith Eisenberg for workers' compensation benefits after she was assaulted on a public sidewalk while walking to her car after leaving work at the Cook County Department of Public Aid. The Industrial Commission and lower courts denied the claim, finding that the injuries did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed this decision, reasoning that injuries sustained off the employer's premises while traveling to or from work are generally not compensable unless the employee's presence there was required by her duties or she faced a hazard peculiar to her employment greater than that of the general public, which was not shown here.
The case concerned whether an employee could bring a civil damages action against his employer for alleged age discrimination in violation of the Illinois Age Discrimination Act after being involuntarily retired at age 56. The circuit court dismissed the complaint, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal. The court reasoned that the statute created only a criminal penalty for violations and stated that the protected right to nondiscriminatory employment "shall be protected as provided herein," which precluded implying a private civil remedy; it contrasted this with other Illinois anti-discrimination laws that explicitly authorized civil actions. A related contract claim was also dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.
This case involved two Chicago firefighters who were seriously burned while responding to a fire at a gas station, which started when an employee left a defective pump unattended, causing gasoline to overflow, and a driver then discarded a lit match. The plaintiffs sued the station owner, operator, and others for negligence in the pump's condition and related actions that caused the fire, seeking to extend premises liability to firefighters injured by the fire's origin. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, the appellate court reversed, and the Illinois Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision, affirming summary judgment for the defendants. The court held that a landowner's duty to firefighters, as clarified from prior precedent like Dini v. Naiditch, is limited to negligence in maintaining the premises and does not extend to acts of negligence that cause the fire itself, treating firefighters as having assumed the risks of fighting fires under traditional licensee principles. The core reasoning emphasized distinguishing between hazards on the property and the initial cause of the fire, consistent with subsequent case law limiting liability in such scenarios.
The case involved two minor sisters convicted in Ogle County circuit court of violating Illinois' 1973 curfew statute after being found in a parked car at 1 a.m. without adult supervision; each received a $10 fine. The appellate court reversed the convictions, ruling the statute unconstitutionally infringed on minors' rights to travel and exercise First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and association. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding the statute constitutional because its prohibitions and exceptions provided adequate notice of prohibited conduct and did not delegate unfettered discretion to officers. The court reasoned that the curfew served legitimate interests in protecting minors and that terms like "responsible companion" and "supervised" were sufficiently definite when read in context with the listed exceptions for work and parental approval.