ILCS » Chapter 415 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

415 ILCS 5/43 (2026)

(a) In circumstances of substantial danger to the environment or to the public health of persons or to the welfare of persons where such danger is to the livelihood of such persons, the State's Attorney or Attorney General, upon request of the Agency or on his own motion, may institute a civil action for an immediate injunction to halt any discharge or other activity causing or contributing to the danger or to require such other action as may be necessary

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(415 ILCS 5/43) (from Ch. 111 1/2, par. 1043)
    Sec. 43. (a) In circumstances of substantial danger to the environment or to the public health of persons or to the welfare of persons where such danger is to the livelihood of such persons, the State's Attorney or Attorney General, upon request of the Agency or on his own motion, may institute a civil action for an immediate injunction to halt any discharge or other activity causing or contributing to the danger or to require such other action as may be necessary. The court may issue an ex parte order and shall schedule a hearing on the matter not later than 3 working days from the date of injunction.
    (b) If any term or condition of an NPDES permit issued under this Act for discharges from a publicly owned or publicly regulated sewage works is violated, the use of the sewage works by a contaminant source not using the works prior to a finding that the condition was violated:
    (i) may be prohibited by the public body owning or regulating such sewage works, pursuant to State law or local ordinance; or
    (ii) may be prohibited or restricted under the provisions of Title VIII of this Act; or
    (iii) the State's Attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, or the Attorney General, at the request of the Agency or on his own motion, may proceed in a court of competent jurisdiction to secure such relief.
    (c) If an industrial user of a publicly owned or publicly regulated sewage works is not in compliance with a system of user charges required under State law or local ordinance or regulations or as a term or condition of any NPDES permit issued under this Act to the sewage works into which the user is discharging contaminants, the system of charges may be enforced directly against the industrial user--
    (i) by the public body owning or regulating such sewage works, pursuant to State law or local ordinance; or
    (ii) under the provisions of Title VIII of this Act; or
    (iii) the State's Attorney of the county in which the violation occurred, or the Attorney General, at the request of the Agency or on his own motion, may proceed in a court of competent jurisdiction to secure such relief.
(Source: P.A. 78-862.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases, 1995–2010 · leading case: City of Elgin v. Cnty. of Cook, 660 N.E.2d 875 (Ill. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Elgin v. Cnty. of Cook, 660 N.E.2d 875 (Ill. 1995). · cites it 2× “) Moreover, to protect against inaction by the Pollution Control Board or the Agency, the legislative scheme permits State's Attorneys and the Attorney General to file civil actions, authorizing them to seek injunctive relief where necessary.”
People Ex Rel. Ryan v. Agpro, Inc., 803 N.E.2d 1007 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “) 415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 2002). We believe that the emphasized portion of section 43(a) is an express grant of authority to issue a mandatory injunction where the other requirements of that section are met.”
People Ex Rel. Ryan v. Agpro, Inc., 824 N.E.2d 270 (Ill. 2005). “” 415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 2002). This broad authorization presumably includes any mandatory injunction “as may be necessary.”
People Ex Rel. Burris v. C.J.R. Processing, Inc., 647 N.E.2d 1035 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “(See 415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 1992).) The complaint requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the imposition of civil penalties, and orders requiring the defendants to correct the violations.”
Sierra Club v. Illinois Pollution Control, 936 N.E.2d 670 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 2× “415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 2008). Because Illinois authorizes corrective action and injunctive relief under the Act, reopener language like that contained in USEPA delistings is unnecessary for delistings in this state.”
People ex rel. Ryan v. Agpro, Inc. (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 2× “) 415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 2002). We believe that the emphasized portion of section 43(a) is an express grant of authority to issue a mandatory injunction where the other requirements of that section are met.”
People ex rel. Ryan v. Agpro, Inc. (Ill. 2005). “” 415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 2002). This broad authorization presumably includes any mandatory injunction “as may be necessary.”
Sierra Club v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd. (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 2008). Because Illinois authorizes corrective action and injunctive relief under the Act, reopener language like that contained in USEPA delistings is unnecessary for delistings in this state.”
— 415 ILCS 5/43(a) — 8 cases
City of Elgin v. Cnty. of Cook, 660 N.E.2d 875 (Ill. 1995). “) Moreover, to protect against inaction by the Pollution Control Board or the Agency, the legislative scheme permits State's Attorneys and the Attorney General to file civil actions, authorizing them to seek injunctive relief where necessary.”
People Ex Rel. Ryan v. Agpro, Inc., 803 N.E.2d 1007 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). “) 415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 2002). We believe that the emphasized portion of section 43(a) is an express grant of authority to issue a mandatory injunction where the other requirements of that section are met.”
People Ex Rel. Ryan v. Agpro, Inc., 824 N.E.2d 270 (Ill. 2005). “” 415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 2002). This broad authorization presumably includes any mandatory injunction “as may be necessary.”
People Ex Rel. Burris v. C.J.R. Processing, Inc., 647 N.E.2d 1035 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “(See 415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 1992).) The complaint requested preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, the imposition of civil penalties, and orders requiring the defendants to correct the violations.”
Sierra Club v. Illinois Pollution Control, 936 N.E.2d 670 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “415 ILCS 5/43(a) (West 2008). Because Illinois authorizes corrective action and injunctive relief under the Act, reopener language like that contained in USEPA delistings is unnecessary for delistings in this state.”
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.