police power doctrine in Illinois

2019Id. ¶ 73 Drury claims that Ordinance 14-19 was an invalid exercise of the Village’s police power in violation of the due process clause of the Illinois Constitution and its federal counterpart, made applicable to the states via the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution.

2018Id. ¶ 73 Drury claims that Ordinance 14-19 was an invalid exercise of the Village's police power in violation of the due process clause of the Illinois Constitution and its federal counterpart, made applicable to the states via the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

1980(Tillitson v. City of Urbana (1963), 29 Ill. 2d 22, 27 ; La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 40, 47-48 .) For the following reasons, we find that appellee demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that the rezoning of her property as aforesaid is unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory and bears no substantial relationship to the public health and welfare.

1980(Tillitson v. City of Urbana (1963), 29 Ill. 2d 22, 27 ; La Salle National Bank v. County of Cook (1957), 12 Ill. 2d 40, 47-48 .) For the following reasons, we find that appellee demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that the rezoning of her property as aforesaid is unreasonable, arbitrary and confiscatory and bears no substantial relationship to the public health and welfare.

1979App. 3d 458, 467 , 355 N.E.2d 131 ), our discussion and determination of the rationality and reasonableness of the classification, under the police power analysis previously set forth, covers that issue.

1958These grounds, however, have been rejected by this court as a justification for the exercise of the police power in Heck v. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296 , since “Almost any common-law cause of action may be used, and at times is used by blackmailers and extortionists.” Similarly, the Federal court in Wilder v. Reno, 49 F. Supp. 727 , held that the potentiality of abuse did not justify an exercise of the police power to bar breach of promise and alienation of affections suits.

1958These grounds, however, have been rejected by this court as a justification for the exercise of the police power in Heck v. Schupp, 394 Ill. 296 , since "Almost any common-law cause of action may be used, and at times is used by blackmailers *604 and extortionists." Similarly, the Federal court in Wilder v. Reno, 49 F. Supp. 727 , held that the potentiality of abuse did not justify an exercise of the police power to bar breach of promise and alienation of affections suits.

1919(City of Chicago v. Rogers Park Water Co. 214 Ill. 212 ; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 .) While the general principle above announced is uniformly recognized, it is equally true that the owner of property has the right to make any use of it he desires that does not endanger or threaten the safety, health, comfort or general welfare of the public.” Mr. Cooley* in his work on Constitutional Limitations, states the doctrine of the police power thus: “All contracts and all rights, it is held, are subject to this power, and regulations which affect them may not be established by the State but mus

1919(Town of Lake View v. Rose Hill Cemetery Co. 70 Ill. 191 .) Whether or not an ordinance is the proper exercise of police power is a judicial question.

1919(City of Chicago v. Rogers Park Water Co. 214 Ill. 212 ; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623 .) While the general principle above announced is uniformly recognized, it is equally true that the owner of property has the right to make any use of it he desires that does not endanger or threaten the safety, health, comfort or general welfare of the public.” Mr. Cooley* in his work on Constitutional Limitations, states the doctrine of the police power thus: “All contracts and all rights, it is held, are subject to this power, and regulations which affect them may not be established by the State but mus

1915In Bradbury v. Drainage District, 236 Ill. 36 , this court held that a drainage district, under the powers granted by the Levee Drainage act, must pay damages for causing lands to be flooded by the construction of a levee built by the district to assist in draining the lands within the district; that said district was not .relieved from paying such damage under the doctrine of the police power.