ILCS » Chapter 25 · Act 75

25 ILCS 75/5

Bills required to have home rule notes

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(25 ILCS 75/5) (from Ch. 63, par. 42.91-5)
    Sec. 5. Bills required to have home rule notes. Every bill that denies or limits any power or function of a home rule unit shall have prepared for it before second reading in the house of introduction a brief explanatory note that includes a reliable estimate of the probable impact of the bill on the powers and functions of home rule units.
(Source: P.A. 87-229.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2011–2025 · leading case: Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Assn'n
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Palm v. 2800 Lake Shore Drive Condominium Assn'n (2013) ill “” 25 ILCS 75/5 (West 2010). Accordingly, the legislature has recognized its principal role in determining whether to preempt or limit home rule power and its responsibility to use specific language when preempting or limiting that power.”
City of Chicago v. StubHub, Inc. (2011) ill “” 25 ILCS 75/5 (West 2010). A request for a home rule note may be made by the sponsor of the bill (25 ILCS 75/10 (West 2010)) or, if the sponsor -20- believes no home rule note is necessary, by any member of either house, upon a majority vote (25 ILCS 75/15 (West 2010)).”
Souza v. City of West Chicago (2021) illappct · cites it 2× “¶ 50 The court in Palm also noted that, in the Home Rule Note Act (25 ILCS 75/5 (West 2018)), the legislature provided that any bill seeking to limit home rule power must, before a second reading, include an explanation that reliably estimates the probable impact of the bill on…”
Shachter v. The City of Chicago (2016) illappct “" 25 ILCS 75/5 (West 2014). The most recent, relevant amendment to section 1-2-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code was made in 1995, when the maximum permissible municipal fine was increased from $500 to $750.”
Souza v. City of West Chicago (2021) illappct · cites it 2× “¶ 50 The court in Palm also noted that, in the Home Rule Note Act (25 ILCS 75/5 (West 2018)), the legislature provided that any bill seeking to limit home rule power must, before a second reading, include an explanation that reliably estimates the probable impact of the bill on…”
Lintzeris v. City of Chicago (2021) illappct “” 25 ILCS 75/5 (West 2016). Our supreme court has interpreted that provision as the legislature’s recognition of its principal role in determining whether to preempt or limit home rule power and its responsibility to use specific language when doing so.”
Shachter v. City of Chicago (2016) illappct “" 25 ILCS 75/5 (West 2014). The most recent, relevant amendment to section 1-2-1 of the Illinois Municipal Code was made in 1995, when the maximum permissible municipal fine was increased from $500 to $750.”
People v. Buckley (2022) illappct “” 25 ILCS 75/5 (West 2018). Our supreme court has interpreted that provision as the legislature’s recognition of its principal role in determining whether to preempt or limit home rule power and its responsibility to use specific language when doing so.”
FCA Consultants v. City of Chicago (2025) illappct “The General Assembly codified in Section 7 of the Statute on Statutes (5 ILCS 70/7 (West 2016)) and Section 5 of the Home Rule Note Act (25 ILCS 75/5 (West 2016)), the principle being if the legislature intended to limit or deny the exercise of a home rule unit’s powers, it must…”
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.