ILCS » Chapter 220 · Act 50
Illinois Compiled Statutes

220 ILCS 50/1 (2026)

This Act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act, and for the purposes of participating in the State of Illinois Joint Purchasing Program, the One-Call Notice System, commonly referred to as "JULIE, Inc

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(220 ILCS 50/1) (from Ch. 111 2/3, par. 1601)
    Sec. 1. This Act shall be known, and may be cited, as the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act, and for the purposes of participating in the State of Illinois Joint Purchasing Program, the One-Call Notice System, commonly referred to as "JULIE, Inc.", shall be considered as created by this Act.
(Source: P.A. 103-614, eff. 1-1-25.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2021 · leading case: Excavation Tech., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pennsylvania, 936 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Excavation Tech., Inc. v. Columbia Gas Co. of Pennsylvania, 936 A.2d 111 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2007). · cites it 2× “(2007); see also, 220 ILCS 50/1 (2007) (describing the Title as follows: "An Act relating to the prevention of negligent or unsafe excavation or demolition operations for the protection of persons and property and the preservation of utility services.”
AT&T v. Lyons & Pinner Elec. Co., Inc., 2014 IL App (2d) 130577 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “AT&T alleged that Lyons was negligent and had violated the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (the Act) (220 ILCS 50/1 et seq. (West 2010)) in performing its work.”
Neri Bros. Constr. v. Vill. of Evergreen Park, 841 N.E.2d 148 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). · cites it 2× “In urging reversal on appeal, Neri argues both that it is not liable under the terms of the Village’s ordinance as it did not own, lease, operate or control the source of the gas leak, and that the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (Act) (220 ILCS…”
Followell v. Cent. Illinois Pub. Serv. Co., 663 N.E.2d 1122 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996). “Because much of the work would involve excavations, the plaintiff properly notified the utility owners of the location where the work was to be done and requested that the utilities locate and mark the approximate location of their underground facilities pursuant to the Illinois…”
Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Munizzo, 2013 IL App (3d) 120153 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “Plaintiff-counterdefendant, Commonwealth Edison Company (Com Ed), brought this small claims action, alleging defendant-counterplaintiff, Mark Munizzo, was negligent and violated the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (the Act) (220 ILCS 50/1 et seq.…”
N. Illinois Gas Co. v. R.W. Dunteman Co., 704 N.E.2d 960 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “The issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly construed the requirements of section 10 of the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (the Act) (220 ILCS 50/1 et seq. (West 1996)) and held that plaintiffs actions, by providing horizontal location…”
Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Plote, Inc., 778 N.E.2d 1203 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “2d 443 (1982)); that it has a cause of action under both the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (220 ILCS 50/1 et seq. (West 1996)) and the Illinois Highway Code (605 ILCS 5/1 — 101 et seq.”
Peoples Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Joel Kennedy Constr. Corp., 829 N.E.2d 866 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “PRESIDING JUSTICE CAHILL delivered the opinion of the court: We are asked to decide whether negligence and trespass claims that arise out of the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (Act) (220 ILCS 50/1 et seq. (West 1998)) are superseded by section 11…”
N. Illinois Gas Co. v. USIC, LLC (N.D. Ga. 2021). “In Federal 6 Illinois has virtually identical legal requirements for excavation, as stated in the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act, 220 ILCS 50/1 et seq. Paper Board Co., for example, the court applied the statute to a contract to repair paper…”
NIGas Co. v. R.W. Dunteman Co. (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “The issue on appeal is whether the trial court correctly construed the requirements of section 10 of the Illinois Underground Utility Facilities Damage Prevention Act (the Act) (220 ILCS 50/1 et seq. (West 1996)) and held that plaintiff's actions, by providing horizontal…”
Illinois Bell Tel. Co. v. Plote, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “We affirm in part, reverse in part and remand for further proceedings.”
People Gas Light & Coke Co. v. Joel Kennedy Constructing Corp. (Ill. App. Ct. 2005). “(West 1998)) are superseded by section 11 of the Act and subject to the two-year statute of limitations found in section 12 of the Act (220 ILCS 50/11, 12 (West 1998)). We conclude that the two-year statute of limitations applies only to the statutorily defined acts or omissions…”
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.