Email

Recent Court Decisions

Recent court and agency decisions involving board work

IASB's Office of General Counsel prepares summaries chosen from the Illinois Supreme and Appellate courts, federal court, agencies, the Illinois Public Access Counselor, and other tribunals issuing interesting decisions. Information in the summaries is limited to a brief synopsis and is not intended for purposes of legal advice. For the complete text of any case cited in this section, go to the Illinois state courts, Illinois Attorney General, or Federal courts finder links.

To search by the names of the plaintiff or defendant or other keyword, use the site search box located at the top of this website. Then filter results by Court Decision.

Questions regarding Recent Court and Agency Decisions should be directed to Maryam Brotine, ext. 1219, or by [email protected].


Court decisions are listed in order of the date posted, with the most recent shown first.

  • Open Meetings Act - OMA
    Sufficiently informing the public of the nature of the business being conducted before taking final action
    Case: Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186 v. Attorney General of Illinois, 2015 IL App (4th) 140941 (1-12-16).
    Decision Date: Tuesday, January 12, 2016

    Originally issued Dec. 15, 2015, the court issued a corrected opinion. During a public meeting, the board voted to terminate employment of its superintendent. The superintendent and the board reached agreement as to terms of separation, and he signed a 19-page “separation agreement and release.” The board appropriately considered the superintendent's dismissal and signed the agreement during closed session one month prior to its vote in open session as permitted by section 2(c)(1) of Open Meetings Act.

    The Alliance filed an Amicus (friend of the court) brief in support of the Springfield School District 186 Board of Education.

  • Freedom of Information Act - FOIA
    Timely response to FOIA request; unduly burdensome requests
    Case: Public Access Opinion 15-011
    Decision Date: Monday, November 9, 2015

    A request for certified payroll records was made of a public body. The public body did not respond in the required 5 day timeframe and it asserted that the records request was unduly burdensome. The PAC has found that a public body must respond within the required 5 days and, if the public body asserts the request as unduly burdensome, it must provide the requestor an opportunity to narrow the FOIA request.

    If a public body wants to assert that a records request is unduly burdensome, it should contact its board attorney for assistance to respond within the required timeframes and narrow the request to something manageable.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

  • Freedom of Information Act - FOIA
    Information concerning outside counsel
    Case: Public Access Opinion 15-010
    Decision Date: Wednesday, October 21, 2015

    The public body received a FOIA request for lists of outside counsel, including the agencies represented and a description of their work. The lists provided by the public body are not exempt by section 7(1)(m) of FOIA. The lists contain only general information about the legal services provided for the public body. The lists do not contain litigation plans, mental impressions, legal advice, or legal theories. Additionally, rates paid to outside counsel are subject to disclosure because the records pertain to the use of public funds by the State.

    Compiling information already in the public body’s possession into a different format in order to respond to a FOIA request does not constitute the creation of a new record.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

    Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

  • Freedom of Information Act - FOIA
    Unwarranted invasion of privacy exemption
    Case: Public Access Opinion 15-009
    Decision Date: Monday, September 28, 2015

    The public body must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that records are exempt from disclosure pursuant to section 7(1)(c). A 7(1)(c) personal privacy exemption claim requires the balancing of the public’s interest in disclosure of certain information against the individual’s privacy interest. Close family members of a decedent may have a right of privacy in the disclosure of records concerning the decedent. To determine if the public interest outweighs any privacy rights four factors are considered and weighed: (1) the requester’s interest in disclosure, (2) the public interest in disclosure, (3) the degree of invasion of personal privacy, and (4) the availability of alternative means of obtaining the requested information.

    This opinion is binding only to the parties involved and may be appealed pursuant to State law.

    Shanell M. Bowden, IASB Law Clerk

  • Individual Board Member Interests
    School boards are subject to cities’ zoning ordinances
    Case: Gruba v. Community High School District 155, 2015 IL 118332 (9-24-2015).
    Decision Date: Thursday, September 24, 2015
    The Illinois Supreme Court has held that a school district is subject to, and its school board must comply with, local government zoning and storm water restrictions, i.e., a city’s zoning powers. The case arose when neighbors to a high school didn’t like the bleachers being built in the football stadium. The city issued a stop-order against the board prohibiting the continuation of the work on the bleachers. The neighbors sued the district seeking to privately enforce the city’s zoning ordinances. The court considered the board’s arguments supporting its position that the city may not restrict a school district’s land use. The court disagreed in an opinion that reads like a reply brief. The court relied on a provision in the School Code expressly allowing boards to seek zoning changes, variations, or special new uses for properties held or controlled by the school district. The court reasoned that this provision demonstrates that the legislature intended to subject the local school board to the municipality’s zoning regulations.