ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 120
Illinois Compiled Statutes

5 ILCS 120/1 (2026)

Policy

✓ 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) (from Ch. 102, par. 41)
    Sec. 1. Policy. It is the public policy of this State that public bodies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business and that the people have a right to be informed as to the conduct of their business. In order that the people shall be informed, the General Assembly finds and declares that it is the intent of this Act to ensure that the actions of public bodies be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
    The General Assembly further declares it to be the public policy of this State that its citizens shall be given advance notice of and the right to attend all meetings at which any business of a public body is discussed or acted upon in any way. Exceptions to the public's right to attend exist only in those limited circumstances where the General Assembly has specifically determined that the public interest would be clearly endangered or the personal privacy or guaranteed rights of individuals would be clearly in danger of unwarranted invasion.
    To implement this policy, the General Assembly declares:
        (1) it is the intent of this Act to protect the
    
citizen's right to know; and
        (2) the provisions for exceptions to the open meeting
    
requirements shall be strictly construed against closed meetings.
(Source: P.A. 88-621, eff. 1-1-95.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 113 cases (21 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Duncan Publ'g, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 709 N.E.2d 1281 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Duncan Publ'g, Inc. v. City of Chicago, 709 N.E.2d 1281 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 4× “Although the dissent takes issue with our "interpretation" of the term "public body," we will not depart from the definition supplied by the legislature itself. Unquestionably, each of the various departments within the City must be considered public bodies.”
Lawrence v. Williams, 2013 IL App (1st) 130757 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 5× “But, due to the electoral board’s failure to abide by the provisions of the Illinois Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2010)), we dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”
The Bd. of Educ. of Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 186 v. The Attorney Gen. of Illinois, 2017 IL 120343 (Ill. 2017). · cites it 3× “OPINION ¶1 On administrative review, the circuit court of Sangamon County reversed the Attorney General’s binding opinion finding violations of the Open Meetings Act (Act) (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2012)). The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.”
Howe v. Ret. Bd. of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 2013 IL App (1st) 122446 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 3× “” Thereafter, the Board never adopted, by majority affirmative vote, any motion whatsoever disposing of the application and approving a written decision as required by the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2010)). Nonetheless, the Board thereafter issued a written…”
Paxson v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. No. 87, 658 N.E.2d 1309 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 3× “Plaintiffs sought injunctive and declaratory relief under the Illinois Open Meetings Act (Act) (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 1992)). The circuit court dismissed plaintiffs’ action with prejudice on the grounds that (i) plaintiffs lacked standing, and (ii) plaintiffs did not file…”
People Ex Rel. Graf v. Vill. of Lake Bluff, 748 N.E.2d 801 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001). · cites it 4× “Since both annexations were approved by trial courts, plaintiffs' current action amounts to an impermissible collateral attack upon the findings rendered in the earlier annexation proceedings.”
Lombard Pub. Facilities Corp. v. Dep't of Revenue, 881 N.E.2d 598 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 2× “3 of the articles made the Opien Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1, et seq. (West 2004)), the State Gift Ban Act (5 ILCS 425/1 et seq.”
Bd. of Educ. of Springfield Sch. Dist. No. 186 v. Attorney Gen., 2017 IL 120343 (Ill. 2017). · cites it 3× “OPINION ¶1 On administrative review, the circuit court of Sangamon County reversed the Attorney General’s binding opinion finding violations of the Open Meetings Act (Act) (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2012)). The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court.”
Powell v. East St. Louis Electoral Bd., 785 N.E.2d 1014 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). · cites it 2× “(West 2000)) the circuit court did not have the authority to entertain allegations of violations of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2000)). On January 30, 2003, petitioners filed their notices of appeal from the decision of the circuit court.”
Eberhardt v. Vill. of Tinley Park, 2024 IL App (1st) 230139 (Ill. App. Ct. 2024). · cites it 2× “1-23-0139 comment, in violation of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 2020)), and interfering with plaintiff’s actions regarding FOIA matters and litigation and his clients’ access to the courts.”
Roxana Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. Env't Prot. Agency, 2013 IL App (4th) 120825 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “5 (West 2010)) (count I) and (2) the Board violated the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1 to 7.5 (West 2010)) (count II).”
Bd. of Regents of Regency Univ. Sys. v. Reynard, 686 N.E.2d 1222 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 3× “JUSTICE GARMAN delivered the opinion of the court: This case arises under the Open Meetings Act (Act) (5 ILCS 120/1 et seq. (West 1994)) and the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/1 et seq.”
Show all 113 citing cases →
— 5 ILCS 120/1(2) — 4 cases
Henry v. Anderson, 827 N.E.2d 522 (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
City of Bloomington v. Raoul, 2021 IL App (4th) 190539 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
City of Bloomington v. Raoul, 2021 IL App (4th) 190539 (Ill. App. Ct. 2021).
Henry v. Anderson (Ill. App. Ct. 2005).
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.