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.
10 Illinois opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2021 2 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 sentences2021Whipple, 2017 IL App (3d) 150547, ¶ 26 ; see La Salle National Bank of Chicago, 12 Ill. 2d at 46 (stating that the listed factors are “among the facts which may be taken into consideration in determining validity of an ordinance”). ¶ 42 The purpose of the La Salle/Sinclair factors is to determine whether the zoning action was reasonably related to a legitimate government interest and was a reasonable method to achieve that purpose. 2021Whipple, 2017 IL App (3d) 150547, ¶ 26 ; see La Salle National Bank of Chicago, 12 Ill. 2d at 46 (stating that the listed factors are “among the facts which may be taken into consideration in determining validity of an ordinance”). ¶ 42 The purpose of the La Salle/Sinclair factors is to determine whether the zoning action was reasonably related to a legitimate government interest and was a reasonable method to achieve that purpose. | 2 | 5 |
Napleton v. Village of Hinsdalegreen2 sentences2021Compare Napleton, 229 Ill. 2d at 319 (factors do not lend themselves to facial challenges), with Paul v. County of Ogle, 2018 IL App (2d) 170696, ¶¶ 28, 30 (rejecting assigning “talismanic significance” to the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges and noting that the La Salle/Sinclair factors can apply even where an ordinance concerns one piece of property). 2021Compare Napleton, 229 Ill. 2d at 319 (factors do not lend themselves to facial challenges), with Paul v. County of Ogle, 2018 IL App (2d) 170696, ¶¶ 28, 30 (rejecting assigning “talismanic significance” to the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges and noting that the La Salle/Sinclair factors can apply even where an ordinance concerns one piece of property). | 2 | 2 |
Paul v. County of Oglegreen2 sentences2021Compare Napleton, 229 Ill. 2d at 319 (factors do not lend themselves to facial challenges), with Paul v. County of Ogle, 2018 IL App (2d) 170696, ¶¶ 28, 30 (rejecting assigning “talismanic significance” to the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges and noting that the La Salle/Sinclair factors can apply even where an ordinance concerns one piece of property). 2021Compare Napleton, 229 Ill. 2d at 319 (factors do not lend themselves to facial challenges), with Paul v. County of Ogle, 2018 IL App (2d) 170696, ¶¶ 28, 30 (rejecting assigning “talismanic significance” to the distinction between facial and as-applied challenges and noting that the La Salle/Sinclair factors can apply even where an ordinance concerns one piece of property). | 2 | 2 |
Drury v. Village of Barrington Hillsgreen2 sentences2021See Drury v. Village of Barrington Hills, 2018 IL App (1st) 173042 . 2021See Drury v. Village of Barrington Hills, 2018 IL App (1st) 173042 . | 2 | 2 |
Estate of Strocchia v. City of Chicagogreen2 sentences2001See Estate of Strocchia, 284 Ill.App.3d at 901 , 220 Ill.Dec. 102 , 672 N.E.2d 919 . 2001See Estate of Strocchia, 284 Ill.App.3d at 901 , 220 Ill.Dec. 102 , 672 N.E.2d 919 . | 2 | 2 |
Oliver Construction Co. v. Village of Villa Parkgreen2 sentences1997See Oliver, 257 Ill.App.3d at 755 , 195 Ill.Dec. 891 , 629 N.E.2d 199 . 1997See Oliver, 257 Ill.App.3d at 755 , 195 Ill.Dec. 891 , 629 N.E.2d 199 . | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Illinois. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Sinclair Pipe Line Co. v. Village of Richton Park
green
2 sentences2020The Archdiocese’s theory was that all of the factors identified in LaSalle 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) (the LaSalle/Sinclair factors), weighed in favor of overturning Libertyville’s decisions with respect to the revised application. 2004LaSalle National Bank, 12 Ill. 2d at 46-47 ; Sinclair Pipe Line Co., 19 Ill. 2d at 378 . | 3 | 2004–2020 |
Whipple v. Village of North Utica
green
2 sentences2021Whipple, 2017 IL App (3d) 150547, ¶ 26 ; see La Salle National Bank of Chicago, 12 Ill. 2d at 46 (stating that the listed factors are “among the facts which may be taken into consideration in determining validity of an ordinance”). ¶ 42 The purpose of the La Salle/Sinclair factors is to determine whether the zoning action was reasonably related to a legitimate government interest and was a reasonable method to achieve that purpose. 2021Whipple, 2017 IL App (3d) 150547, ¶ 26 ; see La Salle National Bank of Chicago, 12 Ill. 2d at 46 (stating that the listed factors are “among the facts which may be taken into consideration in determining validity of an ordinance”). ¶ 42 The purpose of the La Salle/Sinclair factors is to determine whether the zoning action was reasonably related to a legitimate government interest and was a reasonable method to achieve that purpose. | 2 | 2021–2021 |
City of Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach Full Gospel Church & Ministries, Inc.
green
2 sentences2017However, “a special use permit must be denied when it is determined from the facts and circumstances that the grant of the requested special exception use would result in an adverse effect upon adjoining and surrounding properties unique and different from the adverse effect that would otherwise result from the development of such a special exception use located anywhere within the zone.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 21-22 . ¶ 28 Evaluating plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim under the La Salle/Sinclair factors and Living Word in the context of a motion to dismiss, we find 2017However, “a special use permit must be denied when it is determined from the facts and circumstances that the grant of the requested special exception use would result in an adverse effect upon adjoining and surrounding properties unique and different from the adverse effect that would otherwise result from the development of such a special exception use located anywhere within the zone.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. at 21-22 . 9 ¶ 28 Evaluating plaintiffs’ substantive due process claim under the La Salle/Sinclair factors and Living Word in the context of a motion to dismiss, we fin | 2 | 2017–2017 |
Hamann v. Sumichrast
green
2 sentences1997Hamann v. Sumichrast, 222 Ill.App.3d 962, 976 , 165 Ill.Dec. 413 , 584 N.E.2d 847 (1991). 1997Hamann v. Sumichrast, 222 Ill. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.