Illinois Compiled Statutes
210 ILCS 125/2 (2026)
Legislative purpose
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(210 ILCS 125/2)
(from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 1202) Sec. 2. Legislative purpose. It is found that there exists, and may in
the future exist, within the
State of Illinois public swimming facilities, including swimming pools, spas, water slides, public
bathing beaches, and other swimming facilities, which
are substandard in one or more important features of safety, cleanliness or
sanitation. Such conditions adversely affect the public health, safety and
general welfare of persons. Therefore, the purpose of this Act is to protect, promote and preserve
the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for the
establishment and enforcement of minimum standards for safety, cleanliness
and general sanitation for all swimming facilities, including swimming pools, spas, water slides,
public bathing beaches, and other aquatic features
now in existence or hereafter constructed, developed, or altered,
and to
provide for
inspection and licensing of all such facilities.(Source: P.A. 96-1081, eff. 7-16-10; 97-957, eff. 1-1-13.) Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3
cases, 1999–2011 · leading case: Bier v. Leanna Lakeside Prop. Ass'n, 711 N.E.2d 773 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999).
Bier v. Leanna Lakeside Prop. Ass'n, 711 N.E.2d 773 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “” 210 ILCS 125/2 (West 1994). We also find that the statute, as it was alleged to have been violated, was designed to protect a class of persons to which the plaintiff belonged from the kind of injury suffered.”
Barnett v. Ludwig & Co., 960 N.E.2d 722 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “" 210 ILCS 125/2 (West 2010). This provision is far too broad to be read as imposing a specific duty of the kind plaintiff claims was owed to Darius by defendants.”
Barnett v. Ludwig & Co., 2011 IL App (2d) 101053 (Ill. App. Ct. 2011). “” 210 ILCS 125/2 (West 2010). This provision is far too broad to be read as imposing a specific duty of the kind plaintiff claims was owed to Darius by defendants.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.
|