ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 140
Illinois Compiled Statutes

5 ILCS 140/11.5 (2026)

Administrative review

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 140/11.5)
    Sec. 11.5. Administrative review. A binding opinion issued by the Attorney General shall be considered a final decision of an administrative agency, for purposes of administrative review under the Administrative Review Law (735 ILCS 5/Art. III). An action for administrative review of a binding opinion of the Attorney General shall be commenced in Cook or Sangamon County. An advisory opinion issued to a public body shall not be considered a final decision of the Attorney General for purposes of this Section.
(Source: P.A. 96-542, eff. 1-1-10.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 2013–2020 · leading case: City of Champaign v. Madigan, 2013 IL App (4th) 120662 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Champaign v. Madigan, 2013 IL App (4th) 120662 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 3× “Whether Communications on Privately Owned Electronic Devices Are Subject to FOIA ¶ 24 “A binding opinion issued by the Attorney General shall be considered a final decision of an administrative agency, for purposes of administrative review under the Administrative Review Law.”
Chicago Tribune Co. v. The Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Reg., 2014 IL App (4th) 130427 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). “5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2010). ¶ 23 An individual whose request for public records is denied may also file an action in the circuit court for injunctive or declaratory relief.”
Nelson v. Cnty. of Kendall, 2013 IL App (2d) 120635 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “5(f) (West 2010)), which will be considered a final decision of an administrative agency subject to administrative review (5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2010)). In the latter situation, the circuit court considers the matter de novo and has the power to enjoin a public body from…”
Fagel v. Dep't of Transp., 2013 IL App (1st) 121841 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). “See 5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2010) (a binding opinion by the Attorney General, as opposed to an advisory opinion, “shall be considered a final decision of an -5- administrative agency, for purposes of administrative review under the Administrative Review Law”); see also 5 ILCS…”
Perry v. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Reg., 2017 IL App (1st) 161780 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2014). ¶4 By contrast, an action in the circuit court under section 11 of the FOIA is a de novo action, not an action for administrative review.”
Perry v. Dep't of Fin. & Prof'l Reg., 2017 IL App (1st) 161780 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2014). ¶4 By contrast, an action in the circuit court under section 11 of the FOIA is a de novo action, not an action for administrative review.”
Brown v. Grosskopf, 2013 IL App (4th) 120402 (Ill. App. Ct. 2013). · cites it 2× “See also 5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2010) (“An advisory opinion issued to a public body shall not be considered a final decision of the Attorney General for purposes of this Section.”
Garlick v. The Off. of the Pub. Access Couns., 2013 IL App (1st) 122444 (Ill. App. Ct. 2014). · cites it 4× “See 5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2010). ¶7 Garlick amended his complaint to state a claim against the PAC and the District under the Administrative Review Law.”
City of Danville v. Madigan, 2018 IL App (4th) 170182 (Ill. App. Ct. 2018). “ANALYSIS ¶ 14 Defendant argues on appeal that (1) the Housing Task Force is not a "public body" subject to FOIA disclosure requirements and (2) the requested records do not constitute "public records" as defined by the Act.”
Peery v. Madison Cnty. State's Attorney's Off., 2020 IL App (5th) 190016-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). “” City of Champaign, 2013 IL App (4th) 120662, ¶ 56 ; 5 ILCS 140/11.5 (West 2016). “In amending FOIA and establishing the Attorney General’s [PAC], the legislature sought to create an expeditious proceeding for the parties to obtain guidance and avoid having to bring a court…”
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.