Illinois Compiled Statutes
5 ILCS 120/1.01 (2026)
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Open Meetings Act
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 120/1.01)
(from Ch. 102, par. 41.01)
Sec. 1.01.
This Act shall be known and may be cited as the Open Meetings Act. (Source: P.A. 82-378.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 14
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2021 · leading case: Carroll v. Paddock, 764 N.E.2d 1118 (Ill. 2002).
Carroll v. Paddock, 764 N.E.2d 1118 (Ill. 2002). “An indicia of the requisite control might be shown by evidence that the governing body of the not-for-profit corporation is subject to regulations such as the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.01 et seq. (West 2000)) or the Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.”
Brugger v. Joseph Academy, Inc., 781 N.E.2d 269 (Ill. 2002). “5 In its final challenge to Carroll, the academy asserts that this court erred by suggesting that the applicability of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.01 et seq. (West 2000)) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.”
Kreutzer v. Illinois Com. Comm'n, 2012 IL App (2d) 110619 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “Relatedly, petitioners suggest that the Commission may have violated the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.01 et seq. (West 2008)) in that, given the late insertion of the reference to the 175-foot margin, ‘there may have been input from some source other than the record.”
Kreutzer v. Illinois Com. Comm'n, 936 N.E.2d 147 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). “Relatedly, petitioners suggest that the Commission may have violated the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/ 1.01 et seq. (West 2008)) in that, given the late insertion of the reference to the 175-foot margin, “there may have been input from some source other than the record.”
O'Toole v. The Chicago Zoological Soc'y, 2015 IL 118254 (Ill. 2015). “Indicative of such control would be evidence that the entity remains subject to state statutes, such as the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.01 et seq. (West 2010)) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.”
O'Toole v. The Chicago Zoological Soc'y, 2015 IL 118254 (Ill. 2015). “Indicative of such control would be evidence that the entity remains subject to state statutes, such as the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.01 et seq. (West 2010)) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.”
Vets. Assistance Comm'n of Grundy Cnty., Illinois v. Cnty. Bd. of Grundy Cnty., Illinois, 2016 IL App (3d) 130969 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “That order denied the efforts of the State to void the first VAC 1 election in 2007, denied the request that Monson be removed from his post as superintendent, and found that VAC 1 violated the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.01 et seq. (West 2010)). ¶ 33 Following argument, the…”
O'Toole v. Chicago Zoological Soc'y, 2014 IL App (1st) 132652 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “As examples, the supreme court stated that a corporation’s required adherence to the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.01 et seq. (West 1 We note that while section 8-101 refers to a “local entity,” as opposed to a “local public entity,” the latter term was indisputably intended.”
Frakes v. Elba-Salem Fire Prot., Dist., 200 F. Supp. 3d 736 (C.D. Ill. 2016). “However, the fact that Frakes later admitted compliance doesn’t detract from his First Amendment protection, as his complaint about a lack of transparency in the operations of a local government entity like the fire department was speaking on a matter of public concern.”
O'Toole v. The Chicago Zoological Soc'y, 2014 IL App (1st) 132652 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “1-13-2652 the supreme court stated that a corporation's required adherence to the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.01 et seq. (West 2000)) or the Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.”
Patterson v. Peoria Cnty. Sheriff's Off. Merit Comm'n, 2021 IL App (3d) 210036-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2021). “¶ 12 In addition, the amended complaint for administrative review included new allegations under the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.01 et seq. (West 2018)). Plaintiff alleged the Merit Commission “failed to call a proper public meeting and failed to post the required notice of…”
Brugger v. Joseph Academy, Inc. (Ill. 2002). “5 In its final challenge to Carroll , the academy asserts that this court erred by suggesting that the applicability of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1.01 et seq. (West 2000)) and the Freedom of Information Act (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq .”
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.
|