Illinois Compiled Statutes
5 ILCS 120/3 (2026)
(a) Where the provisions of this Act are not complied with, or where there is probable cause to believe that the provisions of this Act will not be complied with, any person, including the State's Attorney of the county in which such noncompliance may occur, may bring a civil action in the circuit court for the judicial circuit in which the alleged noncompliance has occurred or is about to occur, or in which the affected public body has its principal office, prior to or within 60 days of the meeting alleged to be in violation of this Act or, if facts concerning the meeting are not discovered within the 60-day period, within 60 days of the discovery of a violation by the State's Attorney or, if the person timely files a request for review under Section 3
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 120/3)
(from Ch. 102, par. 43)
Sec. 3.
(a) Where the provisions of this Act are not complied with, or
where there is probable cause to believe that the provisions of this Act
will not be complied with, any person, including the State's Attorney
of the county in which such noncompliance
may occur, may bring a civil action in the circuit court for the judicial
circuit in which the alleged noncompliance has occurred or is about to occur,
or in which the affected public body has its principal office, prior to
or within 60 days of the meeting alleged to be in
violation of this Act or, if facts concerning the meeting are not discovered
within the 60-day period,
within 60 days of the discovery of a violation by the State's
Attorney or, if the person timely files a request for review under Section 3.5, within 60 days of the decision by the Attorney General to resolve a request for review by a means other than the issuance of a binding opinion under subsection (e) of Section 3.5.
Records that are obtained by a State's Attorney from a public body for purposes of reviewing whether the public body has complied with this Act may not be disclosed to the public. Those records, while in the possession of the State's Attorney, are exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. (b) In deciding such a case the court may examine in camera any portion
of the minutes of a meeting at which a violation of the Act is alleged to
have occurred, and may take such additional evidence as it deems necessary.
(c) The court, having due regard for orderly administration and the public
interest, as well as for the interests of the parties, may grant such
relief as it deems appropriate, including granting a relief
by mandamus requiring that a meeting be open
to the public, granting an injunction against future violations of this
Act, ordering the public body to make available to the public such portion
of the minutes of a meeting as is not
authorized to be kept confidential under this Act, or declaring null and
void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.
(d) The court may assess against any party, except a State's Attorney,
reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred
by any other party who substantially prevails in any action brought in
accordance with this Section, provided that costs may be assessed against
any private party or parties bringing an action pursuant to this Section
only upon the court's determination that the action is malicious or frivolous
in nature.
(Source: P.A. 99-714, eff. 8-5-16.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 34
cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1995–2026 · leading case: Paxson v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. No. 87, 658 N.E.2d 1309 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995).
Paxson v. Bd. of Educ. of Sch. Dist. No. 87, 658 N.E.2d 1309 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). “2 (5 ILCS 120/3 (West 1992).) In order to ensure compliance, the Act provides in pertinent part: "Where the provisions of this Act are not complied with, or where there is probable cause to believe that the provisions of this Act will not be complied with, any person, including…”
Sangirardi v. Vill. of Stickney, 793 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “5 ILCS 120/3 (West 1998). Notwithstanding the statute of limitations bar, the Open Meetings Act provides only that a court may declare “null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.”
Roxana Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. WRB Refining, 2012 IL App (4th) 120331 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 2010). As discussed above, the broad language of the Open Meetings Act suggests that any -8- violation harms members of the general public, regardless of whether the violation affects some more particularly than others.”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (5th) 160046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “AFSCME also filed its own petition for review in the First District, addressing the merits of the ILRB's decision in case it does not prevail on its Open Meetings Act argument.”
Gerwin v. Livingston Cnty. Bd., 802 N.E.2d 410 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “” The board and Jacobson argue that those minutes defeat plaintiffs’ claim for two reasons: (1) a court may not nullify the vote of June 13, 2002, because it occurred in an open rather than a closed meeting (5 ILCS 120/3(c) (West 2002)); and (2) the Act requires only that the…”
Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. v. Martin, 723 N.E.2d 731 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “" 5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 1996). Section 120/3 also authorizes the court to grant any relief "as it deems appropriate, including * * * declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.”
Bd. of Educ. of Waukegan Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 60 v. Illinois State Charter Sch. Comm'n, 2018 IL App (1st) 162084 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “If the circuit court determines that a violation has occurred, it: "may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including granting a relief by mandamus requiring that a meeting be open to the public, granting an injunction against future violations of this Act, ordering the…”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (5th) 160046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “See 5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 2014) (providing that any individual may bring a civil action seeking relief for violations of the Open Meetings Act).”
Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs. v. Martin, 309 Ill. App. 3d 924 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “” 5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 1996). Section 3 also authorizes the court to grant any relief “as it deems appropriate, including *** declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.”
Geraldine Spellan v. Bd. Of Educ. For Dist. 111, 59 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 1995). “3 The district court also noted that, even if plaintiffs' relief was based entirely on state law claims, which it was not, the award of attorneys' fees would still be appropriate under the dictates of the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/3(d). R. 116 at 5 4 We note that,…”
Buckner v. The Univ. Park Police Pension Fund, 2013 IL App (3d) 120231 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 2006) (complaint alleging violation of the Open Meetings Act to be filed with 60 days of violation).”
In re Marriage of Murphy, 763 N.E.2d 933 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “"Prevailing Parties"--Illinois Law The following Illinois statutes allow for attorney fee awards to "substantially prevailing" parties: (1) section 11(i) of Illinois' Freedom of Information Act (Illinois FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11(i) (West 2000)); (2) section 3(d) of the Open Meetings…”
— 5 ILCS 120/3(a) — 12 cases
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (5th) 160046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “AFSCME also filed its own petition for review in the First District, addressing the merits of the ILRB's decision in case it does not prevail on its Open Meetings Act argument.”
Am. Fed'n of State, Cnty., & Mun. Employees v. The Illinois Labor Relations Bd., 2017 IL App (5th) 160046 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “See 5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 2014) (providing that any individual may bring a civil action seeking relief for violations of the Open Meetings Act).”
Buckner v. The Univ. Park Police Pension Fund, 2013 IL App (3d) 120231 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 2006) (complaint alleging violation of the Open Meetings Act to be filed with 60 days of violation).”
Roxana Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. WRB Refining, 2012 IL App (4th) 120331 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 2010). As discussed above, the broad language of the Open Meetings Act suggests that any -8- violation harms members of the general public, regardless of whether the violation affects some more particularly than others.”
Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. of Trs. v. Martin, 309 Ill. App. 3d 924 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “” 5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 1996). Section 3 also authorizes the court to grant any relief “as it deems appropriate, including *** declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.”
— 5 ILCS 120/3(c) — 23 cases
Gerwin v. Livingston Cnty. Bd., 802 N.E.2d 410 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “” The board and Jacobson argue that those minutes defeat plaintiffs’ claim for two reasons: (1) a court may not nullify the vote of June 13, 2002, because it occurred in an open rather than a closed meeting (5 ILCS 120/3(c) (West 2002)); and (2) the Act requires only that the…”
Roxana Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. WRB Refining, 2012 IL App (4th) 120331 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). “5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 2010). As discussed above, the broad language of the Open Meetings Act suggests that any -8- violation harms members of the general public, regardless of whether the violation affects some more particularly than others.”
Bd. of Educ. of Waukegan Cmty. Unit Sch. Dist. 60 v. Illinois State Charter Sch. Comm'n, 2018 IL App (1st) 162084 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “If the circuit court determines that a violation has occurred, it: "may grant such relief as it deems appropriate, including granting a relief by mandamus requiring that a meeting be open to the public, granting an injunction against future violations of this Act, ordering the…”
Sangirardi v. Vill. of Stickney, 793 N.E.2d 787 (Ill. App. Ct. 2003). “5 ILCS 120/3 (West 1998). Notwithstanding the statute of limitations bar, the Open Meetings Act provides only that a court may declare “null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.”
Chicago Sch. Reform Bd. v. Martin, 723 N.E.2d 731 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). “" 5 ILCS 120/3(a) (West 1996). Section 120/3 also authorizes the court to grant any relief "as it deems appropriate, including * * * declaring null and void any final action taken at a closed meeting in violation of this Act.”
— 5 ILCS 120/3(d) — 7 cases
Geraldine Spellan v. Bd. Of Educ. For Dist. 111, 59 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 1995). “3 The district court also noted that, even if plaintiffs' relief was based entirely on state law claims, which it was not, the award of attorneys' fees would still be appropriate under the dictates of the Illinois Open Meetings Act, 5 ILCS 120/3(d). R. 116 at 5 4 We note that,…”
In re Marriage of Murphy, 763 N.E.2d 933 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002). “"Prevailing Parties"--Illinois Law The following Illinois statutes allow for attorney fee awards to "substantially prevailing" parties: (1) section 11(i) of Illinois' Freedom of Information Act (Illinois FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11(i) (West 2000)); (2) section 3(d) of the Open Meetings…”
Spellan v. Bd. of Educ., 59 F.3d 642 (7th Cir. 1995).
Parker v. Nichting, 2012 IL App (3d) 100206 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
Parker v. Nichting, 966 N.E.2d 63 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012).
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.
|