Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
26 Illinois opinions name it 2 courts 1987–2025 7 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Illinois courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
La Salle National Bank v. County of Cookgreen2 sentences2022La Salle, 12 Ill. 2d at 47 . ¶ 49 Here, plaintiffs do not contend that the circuit court failed to consider or improperly balanced the La Salle factors. 2022These factors are commonly referred to as the “La Salle factors,” and they include: “(1) The existing uses and zoning of nearby property [citations], (2) the extent to which property values are diminished by the particular zoning restrictions [citations], (3) the extent to which the destruction of property values of plaintiff promotes the health, 21 safety, morals or general welfare of the public [citations], (4) the relative gain to the public as compared to the hardship imposed upon the individual property owner [citation], (5) the suitability of the subject property for the zoned purposes * | 5 | 13 |
Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Village of Richton Parkgreen2 sentences2024“If there is any conceivable basis for finding a rational relationship, the ordinance will be upheld.” Thornber v. Village of North Barrington, 321 Ill. App. 3d 318, 325 , 747 N.E.2d 513, 520 (2001). ¶ 110 When a zoning action is challenged based on substantive due process, we examine the action for arbitrariness using the factors set out by our supreme court in La Salle and Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Village of Richton Park, 19 Ill. 2d 370 , 167 N.E.2d 406 (1960) (collectively, the La Salle factors). 2024“If there is any conceivable basis for finding a rational relationship, the ordinance will be upheld.” Thornber v. Village of North Barrington, 321 Ill. App. 3d 318, 325 , 747 N.E.2d 513, 520 (2001). ¶ 110 When a zoning action is challenged based on substantive due process, we examine the action for arbitrariness using the factors set out by our supreme court in La Salle and Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Village of Richton Park, 19 Ill. 2d 370 , 167 N.E.2d 406 (1960) (collectively, the La Salle factors). | 5 | 7 |
Rodriguez v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2025See Rodriguez v. Henderson, 217 Ill. App. 3d 1024, 1029 (1991). ¶ 47 Although the plaintiff urged the trial court to consider the La Salle factors on summary judgment, this argument is not referenced in the trial court’s decision. 2025See Rodriguez v. Henderson, 217 Ill. App. 3d 1024, 1029 (1991). ¶ 47 Although the plaintiff urged the trial court to consider the La Salle factors on summary judgment, this argument is not referenced in the trial court’s decision. | 3 | 3 |
Napleton v. Village of Hinsdalegreen2 sentences2021App. 3d 1098, 1106 , 872 N.E.2d 23, 31 (2007). ¶ 20 Here, the trial court properly concluded that the zoning decision by the Logan County Board was subject to de novo review as a legislative decision under section 5-12012.1 of the Illinois Counties Code, which was limited to a claim of constitutional substantive due process under the rational basis test and the La Salle factors. 2021App. 3d 1098, 1106 , 872 N.E.2d 23, 31 (2007). ¶ 20 Here, the trial court properly concluded that the zoning decision by the Logan County Board was subject to de novo review as a legislative decision under section 5-12012.1 of the Illinois Counties Code, which was limited to a claim of constitutional substantive due process under the rational basis test and the La Salle factors. | 3 | 3 |
Whipple v. Village of North Uticagreen2 sentences2018See Whipple , 2017 IL App (3d) 150547 , 414 Ill.Dec. 32 , 79 N.E.3d 667 ; Robrock v. County of Piatt , 2012 IL App (4th) 110590 , 359 Ill.Dec. 792 , 967 N.E.2d 822 . 2018See Whipple , 2017 IL App (3d) 150547 , 414 Ill.Dec. 32 , 79 N.E.3d 667 ; Robrock v. County of Piatt , 2012 IL App (4th) 110590 , 359 Ill.Dec. 792 , 967 N.E.2d 822 . | 2 | 2 |
Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamongreen2 sentences2007See Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon, 351 Ill. 2007See Village of Chatham v. County of Sangamon, 351 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Lamar Whiteco Outdoor Corp. v. City of West Chicagogreen2 sentences2007See Lamar Whiteco, 355 Ill. 2007See Lamar Whiteco, 355 Ill. | 2 | 2 |
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commissiongreen2 sentences2018The United States Supreme Court has cautioned that "[t]he distinction is both instructive and necessary, for it goes to the breadth of the remedy employed by the Court, not what must be pleaded in a complaint." Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n , 558 U.S. 310 , 331, 130 S.Ct. 876 , 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) ; see also Richard H. 2018The United States Supreme Court has cautioned that "[t]he distinction is both instructive and necessary, for it goes to the breadth of the remedy employed by the Court, not what must be pleaded in a complaint." Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n , 558 U.S. 310 , 331, 130 S.Ct. 876 , 175 L.Ed.2d 753 (2010) ; see also Richard H. | 1 | 2 |
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York Citygreen2 sentences2025See Penn Central Transportation Co., 438 U.S. at 133 n.29. 2025See Penn Central Transportation Co., 438 U.S. at 133 n.29. | 1 | 1 |
Thornber v. Village of North Barringtongreen2 sentences2024“If there is any conceivable basis for finding a rational relationship, the ordinance will be upheld.” Thornber v. Village of North Barrington, 321 Ill. App. 3d 318, 325 , 747 N.E.2d 513, 520 (2001). ¶ 110 When a zoning action is challenged based on substantive due process, we examine the action for arbitrariness using the factors set out by our supreme court in La Salle and Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Village of Richton Park, 19 Ill. 2d 370 , 167 N.E.2d 406 (1960) (collectively, the La Salle factors). 2024“If there is any conceivable basis for finding a rational relationship, the ordinance will be upheld.” Thornber v. Village of North Barrington, 321 Ill. App. 3d 318, 325 , 747 N.E.2d 513, 520 (2001). ¶ 110 When a zoning action is challenged based on substantive due process, we examine the action for arbitrariness using the factors set out by our supreme court in La Salle and Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Village of Richton Park, 19 Ill. 2d 370 , 167 N.E.2d 406 (1960) (collectively, the La Salle factors). | 1 | 1 |
Schroeder v. County of Winnebagogreen2 sentences2021App. 3d 207, 209 , 374 N.E.2d 24, 25-26 (1978) (The issuance of a special use permit by the Board of Supervisors was valid where the Zoning Board of Appeals made improper findings of fact but did not have ultimate authority to grant or deny the request for a special use permit.). ¶ 23 As discussed above, we conclude the trial court properly determined that review of the Logan County Board’s zoning decision in this case was limited to arbitrariness as a matter of constitutional substantive due process under the rational basis test and the La Salle factors or a violation of constitutional proced 2021App. 3d 207, 209 , 374 N.E.2d 24, 25-26 (1978) (The issuance of a special use permit by the Board of Supervisors was valid where the Zoning Board of Appeals made improper findings of fact but did not have ultimate authority to grant or deny the request for a special use permit.). ¶ 23 As discussed above, we conclude the trial court properly determined that review of the Logan County Board’s zoning decision in this case was limited to arbitrariness as a matter of constitutional substantive due process under the rational basis test and the La Salle factors or a violation of constitutional proced | 1 | 1 |
Kleidon v. City of Hickory Hillsgreen2 sentences2009App. 3d at 1053-54 , 458 N.E.2d at 940 (considering the La Salle factors in determining the validity of a variance); Lapp, 359 Ill. 2009App. 3d at 1053-54 , 458 N.E.2d at 940 (considering the La Salle factors in determining the validity of a variance); Lapp, 359 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Lapp v. Village of Winnetkagreen2 sentences2009App. 3d at 1053-54 , 458 N.E.2d at 940 (considering the La Salle factors in determining the validity of a variance); Lapp, 359 Ill. 2009App. 3d at 1053-54 , 458 N.E.2d at 940 (considering the La Salle factors in determining the validity of a variance); Lapp, 359 Ill. | 1 | 1 |
Messenger v. Edgargreen2 sentences2008When legislation does not affect a fundamental constitutional right, the test for determining whether it complies with substantive due process requirements is the rational basis test, which asks “whether the legislation represents a rational means to accomplish a proper purpose.” Messenger v. Edgar, 157 Ill. 2d 162, 176 (1993). 2 The La Salle factors referenced in Living Word Outreach were devised as a means of applying the rational basis test to as-applied constitutional challenges to zoning decisions. 2008When legislation does not affect a fundamental constitutional right, the test for determining whether it complies with substantive due process requirements is the rational basis test, which asks “whether the legislation represents a rational means to accomplish a proper purpose.” Messenger v. Edgar, 157 Ill. 2d 162, 176 (1993). 2 The La Salle factors referenced in Living Word Outreach were devised as a means of applying the rational basis test to as-applied constitutional challenges to zoning decisions. | 1 | 1 |
Northern Trust Co. v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2007See Northern Trust Co., 4 Ill. 2d at 437 . 3 We acknowledge that defendant’s expert, GGA, commented only on the effect of banks and other financial institutions in the downtown areas. 4 We note that, given the conclusory nature of many of the allegations that plaintiff contends satisfy the application of the La Salle factors, we would still find plaintiffs complaint to be insufficient even if we were to review it under the heightened scrutiny she proposes. 5 The Plan Commission initially recommended against imposing the temporary moratorium. 2007See Northern Trust Co., 4 Ill. 2d at 437 . 3 We acknowledge that defendant’s expert, GGA, commented only on the effect of banks and other financial institutions in the downtown areas. 4 We note that, given the conclusory nature of many of the allegations that plaintiff contends satisfy the application of the La Salle factors, we would still find plaintiffs complaint to be insufficient even if we were to review it under the heightened scrutiny she proposes. 5 The Plan Commission initially recommended against imposing the temporary moratorium. | 1 | 1 |
| Brown v. County of Lakegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Napleton v. Village of Hinsdale
green
2 sentences2018We agree with the appellate court below that if the same evidentiary standard were used in each type of challenge, there would be no difference between these challenges, leading to the absurd result that a zoning ordinance 'could never be generally valid but invalid as to a particular piece of property; instead, it would be either valid as to all or invalid as to all.' [Citation.] That the La Salle factors do not lend themselves to application to a facial challenge is evident not only from the fact that they focus upon the specific effect of the challenged ordinance upon a particular parcel of 2018We agree with the appellate court below that if the same evidentiary standard were used in each type of challenge, there would be no difference between these challenges, leading to the absurd result that a zoning ordinance 'could never be generally valid but invalid as to a particular piece of property; instead, it would be either valid as to all or invalid as to all.' [Citation.] That the La Salle factors do not lend themselves to application to a facial challenge is evident not only from the fact that they focus upon the specific effect of the challenged ordinance upon a particular parcel of | 4 | 2009–2018 |
Zeitz v. Village of Glenview
green
2 sentences2022Instead, they make two arguments: first, they claim that the circuit court ordered them to replead their substantive due process count in conformity with Zeitz v. Village of Glenview, 227 Ill. App. 3d 891 (1992), which they did, and therefore, that count should not have been dismissed. 2022Instead, they make two arguments: first, they claim that the circuit court ordered them to replead their substantive due process count in conformity with Zeitz v. Village of Glenview, 227 Ill. App. 3d 891 (1992), which they did, and therefore, that count should not have been dismissed. | 2 | 2022–2022 |
Millineum Maintenance Management, Inc. v. County of Lake
green
2 sentences2021Conaghan v. City of Harvard, 2016 IL App (2d) 151034, ¶ 53 , 60 N.E.3d 987 (“Even with the addition of de novo review, the intent of section 5-12012.1 - 10 - was to narrow the range of judicial inquiries into municipal zoning decisions.”); Millineum, 384 Ill. 2021Conaghan v. City of Harvard, 2016 IL App (2d) 151034, ¶ 53 , 60 N.E.3d 987 (“Even with the addition of de novo review, the intent of section 5-12012.1 - 10 - was to narrow the range of judicial inquiries into municipal zoning decisions.”); Millineum, 384 Ill. | 2 | 2018–2021 |
Robrock v. COUNTY OF PIATT
green
2 sentences2018See Whipple , 2017 IL App (3d) 150547 , 414 Ill.Dec. 32 , 79 N.E.3d 667 ; Robrock v. County of Piatt , 2012 IL App (4th) 110590 , 359 Ill.Dec. 792 , 967 N.E.2d 822 . 2018See Whipple , 2017 IL App (3d) 150547 , 414 Ill.Dec. 32 , 79 N.E.3d 667 ; Robrock v. County of Piatt , 2012 IL App (4th) 110590 , 359 Ill.Dec. 792 , 967 N.E.2d 822 . | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Saville
green
2 sentences2018We agree with the appellate court below that if the same evidentiary standard were used in each type of challenge, there would be no difference between these challenges, leading to the absurd result that a zoning ordinance 'could never be generally valid but invalid as to a particular piece of property; instead, it would be either valid as to all or invalid as to all.' [Citation.] That the La Salle factors do not lend themselves to application to a facial challenge is evident not only from the fact that they focus upon the specific effect of the challenged ordinance upon a particular parcel of 2018We agree with the appellate court below that if the same evidentiary standard were used in each type of challenge, there would be no difference between these challenges, leading to the absurd result that a zoning ordinance 'could never be generally valid but invalid as to a particular piece of property; instead, it would be either valid as to all or invalid as to all.' [Citation.] That the La Salle factors do not lend themselves to application to a facial challenge is evident not only from the fact that they focus upon the specific effect of the challenged ordinance upon a particular parcel of | 2 | 2018–2018 |
City of Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach Full Gospel Church & Ministries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2018Living Word Outreach , 196 Ill. 2d at 17 , 255 Ill.Dec. 434 , 749 N.E.2d 916 . ¶ 32 Napleton did not purport to overrule Living Word Outreach , Klaeren , or other cases applying the La Salle factors to cases of this type. 2018Living Word Outreach , 196 Ill. 2d at 17 , 255 Ill.Dec. 434 , 749 N.E.2d 916 . ¶ 32 Napleton did not purport to overrule Living Word Outreach , Klaeren , or other cases applying the La Salle factors to cases of this type. | 2 | 2018–2018 |
Strauss v. City of Chicago
green
1 sentence2022Appellate Court Decision ¶ 35 In reviewing the substantive due process claim, the appellate court observed that the parties disagree about the applicability of the factors established in La Salle National Bank of Chicago v. County of Cook, 12 Ill. 2d 40 (1957), and Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Village of Richton Park, 19 Ill. 2d 370 (1960) (La Salle factors), which courts sometimes use to review the validity of an ordinance on substantive due -9- process grounds. 2021 IL App (1st) 191977 , ¶ 40. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Dunlap v. Village of Schaumburg
green
1 sentence2021Instead, the court’s inquiry is “strictly limited to the question of whether there was any rational basis for the Village [B]oard’s decision that such a variance was warranted.” Dunlap, 394 Ill. App. 3d at 648 . ¶ 78 In determining whether a variance was properly granted or denied, courts consider a number of factors set out by our supreme court in La Salle, 12 Ill. 2d at 46-47 , which are commonly referred to as the “La Salle factors.” These factors include: “(1) The existing uses and zoning of nearby property [citations], (2) the extent to which property values are diminished by the particul | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Conaghan v. The City of Harvard
green
2 sentences2021Conaghan v. City of Harvard, 2016 IL App (2d) 151034, ¶ 53 , 60 N.E.3d 987 (“Even with the addition of de novo review, the intent of section 5-12012.1 - 10 - was to narrow the range of judicial inquiries into municipal zoning decisions.”); Millineum, 384 Ill. 2021Conaghan v. City of Harvard, 2016 IL App (2d) 151034, ¶ 53 , 60 N.E.3d 987 (“Even with the addition of de novo review, the intent of section 5-12012.1 - 10 - was to narrow the range of judicial inquiries into municipal zoning decisions.”); Millineum, 384 Ill. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Village of Barrington Hills v. Village of Hoffman Estates
green
1 sentence2016A municipality’s standing to bring such a challenge to another municipality’s zoning ordinances requires “a clear demonstration that [the challenging municipality] would be substantially, directly and adversely affected in its corporate capacity.” Barrington Hills, 81 Ill. 2d at 398 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Oliver Construction Co. v. Village of Villa Park
green
1 sentence1999Oliver Construction Co., 257 Ill. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Waters Landing Ltd. Partnership v. Montgomery County
green
2 sentences1995Partnership v. Montgomery County (1994), 337 Md. 15 , 650 A.2d 712 . 8 Since the board of trustees in granting the special use permit found Amoco satisfied all of the standards set forth in Schaumburg’s zoning ordinance, and since there was no appeal of the special use prior to the repealer ordinance, we question whether a de novo trial requiring proof of the La Salle factors is even necessary. 1995Partnership v. Montgomery County (1994), 337 Md. 15 , 650 A.2d 712 . 8 Since the board of trustees in granting the special use permit found Amoco satisfied all of the standards set forth in Schaumburg’s zoning ordinance, and since there was no appeal of the special use prior to the repealer ordinance, we question whether a de novo trial requiring proof of the La Salle factors is even necessary. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Norwood Builders v. City of Des Plaines
neutral
2 sentences1991(See La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 40, 46-47 , 145 N.E.2d 65 ; Norwood Builders v. City of Des Plaines (1984), 128 Ill. 1991(See La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 40, 46-47 , 145 N.E.2d 65 ; Norwood Builders v. City of Des Plaines (1984), 128 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Cain v. AMERICAN NAT'L BK. & T. CO. OF CHICAGO
green
1 sentence1991(Cf. Cain v. American National Bank & Trust Co. (1975), 26 Ill. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co.
green
2 sentences1991In addition, we take all well-pleaded factual allegations in the amended complaint as true (see Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 502, 505 , 485 N.E.2d 372, 374 ). a. 1991In addition, we take all well-pleaded factual allegations in the amended complaint as true (see Wheeler v. Caterpillar Tractor Co. (1985), 108 Ill. 2d 502, 505 , 485 N.E.2d 372, 374 ). a. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Drogos v. Village of Bensenville green | 1 | 1991–1991 |
| Precision Components, Inc. v. Kapco Communications green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
| Parrish v. City of Carbondale green | 1 | 1987–1987 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.