ILCS » Chapter 5 · Act 140

5 ILCS 140/11

(a) Any person denied access to inspect or copy any public record by a public body may file suit for injunctive or declaratory relief

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(5 ILCS 140/11) (from Ch. 116, par. 211)
    Sec. 11. (a) Any person denied access to inspect or copy any public record by a public body may file suit for injunctive or declaratory relief.
    (a-5) In accordance with Section 11.6 of this Act, a requester may file an action to enforce a binding opinion issued under Section 9.5 of this Act.
    (b) Where the denial is from a public body of the State, suit may be filed in the circuit court for the county where the public body has its principal office or where the person denied access resides.
    (c) Where the denial is from a municipality or other public body, except as provided in subsection (b) of this Section, suit may be filed in the circuit court for the county where the public body is located.
    (d) The circuit court shall have the jurisdiction to enjoin the public body from withholding public records and to order the production of any public records improperly withheld from the person seeking access. If the public body can show that exceptional circumstances exist, and that the body is exercising due diligence in responding to the request, the court may retain jurisdiction and allow the agency additional time to complete its review of the records.
    (e) On motion of the plaintiff, prior to or after in camera inspection, the court shall order the public body to provide an index of the records to which access has been denied. The index shall include the following:
        (i) A description of the nature or contents of each
    
document withheld, or each deletion from a released document, provided, however, that the public body shall not be required to disclose the information which it asserts is exempt; and
        (ii) A statement of the exemption or exemptions
    
claimed for each such deletion or withheld document.
    (f) In any action considered by the court, the court shall consider the matter de novo, and shall conduct such in camera examination of the requested records as it finds appropriate to determine if such records or any part thereof may be withheld under any provision of this Act. The burden shall be on the public body to establish that its refusal to permit public inspection or copying is in accordance with the provisions of this Act. Any public body that asserts that a record is exempt from disclosure has the burden of proving that it is exempt by clear and convincing evidence.
    (g) In the event of noncompliance with an order of the court to disclose, the court may enforce its order against any public official or employee so ordered or primarily responsible for such noncompliance through the court's contempt powers.
    (h) Except as to causes the court considers to be of greater importance, proceedings arising under this Section shall take precedence on the docket over all other causes and be assigned for hearing and trial at the earliest practicable date and expedited in every way.
    (i) If a person seeking the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record prevails in a proceeding under this Section, the court shall award such person reasonable attorney's fees and costs. In determining what amount of attorney's fees is reasonable, the court shall consider the degree to which the relief obtained relates to the relief sought. The changes contained in this subsection apply to an action filed on or after January 1, 2010 (the effective date of Public Act 96-542).
    (j) If the court determines that a public body willfully and intentionally failed to comply with this Act, or otherwise acted in bad faith, the court shall also impose upon the public body a civil penalty of not less than $2,500 nor more than $5,000 for each occurrence. In assessing the civil penalty, the court shall consider in aggravation or mitigation the budget of the public body and whether the public body has previously been assessed penalties for violations of this Act. The court may impose an additional penalty of up to $1,000 for each day the violation continues if:
        (1) the public body fails to comply with the court's
    
order after 30 days;
        (2) the court's order is not on appeal or stayed; and
        (3) the court does not grant the public body
    
additional time to comply with the court's order to disclose public records.
    The changes contained in this subsection made by Public Act 96-542 apply to an action filed on or after January 1, 2010 (the effective date of Public Act 96-542).
    (k) The changes to this Section made by this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly apply to actions filed on or after the effective date of this amendatory Act of the 99th General Assembly.
(Source: P.A. 99-586, eff. 1-1-17; 99-642, eff. 7-28-16.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 157 cases (51 in the last 5 years), 1994–2026 · leading case: Perry v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Perry v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2018) ill · cites it 10× “Perry and Perry *1019 & Associates, LLC (collectively, Perry), and (2) the Institute for Justice (Institute), filed causes of action under section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ( 5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2012) ) seeking the disclosure of certain information…”
City of Champaign v. Madigan (2013) illappct · cites it 6× “5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010). Section 11(a) does not provide for injunctive relief during the administrative review process.”
Perry v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation (2018) ill · cites it 8× “Perry and Perry & Associates, LLC (collectively, Perry), and (2) the Institute for Justice (Institute), filed causes of action under section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2012)) seeking the disclosure of certain information from the…”
Rock River Times v. Rockford Public School District 205 (2012) illappct · cites it 7× “) 5 ILCS 140/11(i) (West 2008). Section 11(i) was then amended to read that “[i]f a person seeking the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record prevails in a proceeding under this Section, the court shall award such person reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Illinois Education Ass'n v. Illinois State Board of Education (2003) ill · cites it 3× “2d at 408 ; 5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2000); see also Carter v.”
Chicago Tribune Co. v. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2014) illappct · cites it 5× “On April 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment complaint in the circuit court of Sangamon County pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010)). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005 of the…”
Chicago Tribune Co. v. Cook County Assessor's Office (2018) illappct · cites it 4× “That policy is that "all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government.”
Kalven v. The City of Chicago (2014) illappct · cites it 5× “See 5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010). The circuit court has the authority to determine whether the records are subject to FOIA and, if so, whether they are exempt from disclosure.”
Uptown People's Law Center v. The Department of Corrections (2014) illappct · cites it 5× “In furtherance of that objective, a public entity generally has five business days to respond to a request for information (5 ILCS 140/3(d) (West 2010)), and any person denied access to public record may file suit for relief (5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2010)). Moreover, the purpose of…”
Watkins v. McCarthy (2012) illappct · cites it 4× “5 ILCS 140/11(f) (West 2008). ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 In a letter dated July 26, 2008, addressed to the mayor’s office of inquiry and information, plaintiff submitted a FOIA request for: “[A]ll records, including personnel files between 1990 to present, relating to disciplinary actions…”
Green v. Chicago Police Department (2022) ill · cites it 4× “This means that a public body must answer a request in a matter of days, but a requester who is denied access has five years to file a complaint to compel disclosure.”
Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Health (2006) ill · cites it 2× “” On January 23, 1998, plaintiff filed a complaint in the circuit court of Jackson County, pursuant to section 11 of the FOIA (5 ILCS 140/11 (West 1998)). The complaint requested, inter alia, judicial review of the Department’s denial of plaintiffs information request.”
Show all 157 citing cases →
— 5 ILCS 140/11(1) — 1 case
Rockford Police Benevolent & Protective Ass'n v. Morrissey (2010) illappct
— 5 ILCS 140/11(I) — 1 case
Copley Press, Inc. v. Board of Education for Peoria School District No. 150 (2005) illappct
— 5 ILCS 140/11(a) — 45 cases
Chicago Tribune Co. v. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2014) illappct “On April 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment complaint in the circuit court of Sangamon County pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010)). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005 of the…”
City of Champaign v. Madigan (2013) illappct “5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010). Section 11(a) does not provide for injunctive relief during the administrative review process.”
Nelson v. County of Kendall (2013) illappct
Kalven v. The City of Chicago (2014) illappct “See 5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010). The circuit court has the authority to determine whether the records are subject to FOIA and, if so, whether they are exempt from disclosure.”
Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. Environmental Protection Agency (2013) illappct
— 5 ILCS 140/11(b) — 3 cases
Watson v. Weitekamp (2020) illappct
Fields v. Dennison (2020) ilsd
Williams v. McLean County Illinois (2025) ilcd
— 5 ILCS 140/11(d) — 16 cases
Perry v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2018) ill “Perry and Perry *1019 & Associates, LLC (collectively, Perry), and (2) the Institute for Justice (Institute), filed causes of action under section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ( 5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2012) ) seeking the disclosure of certain information…”
Chicago Tribune Co. v. The Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2014) illappct “On April 18, 2011, plaintiff filed a declaratory judgment complaint in the circuit court of Sangamon County pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010)). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment pursuant to section 2-1005 of the…”
Green v. Chicago Police Department (2022) ill “This means that a public body must answer a request in a matter of days, but a requester who is denied access has five years to file a complaint to compel disclosure.”
In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor (2019) ill
Perry v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation (2018) ill “Perry and Perry & Associates, LLC (collectively, Perry), and (2) the Institute for Justice (Institute), filed causes of action under section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2012)) seeking the disclosure of certain information from the…”
— 5 ILCS 140/11(e) — 13 cases
Kelly v. Village of Kenilworth (2019) illappct
Illinois Education Ass'n v. Illinois State Board of Education (2003) ill “2d at 408 ; 5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2000); see also Carter v.”
Goodrich Corp. v. Clark (2005) illappct
City of Champaign v. Madigan (2013) illappct “5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010). Section 11(a) does not provide for injunctive relief during the administrative review process.”
Gekas v. Williamson (2009) illappct
— 5 ILCS 140/11(e)(ii) — 1 case
Peery v. Madison County State's Attorney's Office (2020) illappct
— 5 ILCS 140/11(f) — 57 cases
Watkins v. McCarthy (2012) illappct “5 ILCS 140/11(f) (West 2008). ¶2 BACKGROUND ¶3 In a letter dated July 26, 2008, addressed to the mayor’s office of inquiry and information, plaintiff submitted a FOIA request for: “[A]ll records, including personnel files between 1990 to present, relating to disciplinary actions…”
Southern Illinoisan v. Illinois Department of Public Health (2006) ill “” On January 23, 1998, plaintiff filed a complaint in the circuit court of Jackson County, pursuant to section 11 of the FOIA (5 ILCS 140/11 (West 1998)). The complaint requested, inter alia, judicial review of the Department’s denial of plaintiffs information request.”
Illinois Education Ass'n v. Illinois State Board of Education (2003) ill “2d at 408 ; 5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2000); see also Carter v.”
Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200 (2009) ill
Perry v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2018) ill “Perry and Perry *1019 & Associates, LLC (collectively, Perry), and (2) the Institute for Justice (Institute), filed causes of action under section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ( 5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2012) ) seeking the disclosure of certain information…”
— 5 ILCS 140/11(g) — 1 case
City of Champaign v. Madigan (2013) illappct “5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010). Section 11(a) does not provide for injunctive relief during the administrative review process.”
— 5 ILCS 140/11(h) — 6 cases
Bocock v. McGuire (2018) illappct
Bocock v. McGuire (2017) illappct
Perry v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation (2017) illappct
Perry v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation (2017) illappct
Chicago Sun-Times v. Chicago Police Department (2022) illappct
— 5 ILCS 140/11(i) — 53 cases
Perry v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2018) ill “Perry and Perry *1019 & Associates, LLC (collectively, Perry), and (2) the Institute for Justice (Institute), filed causes of action under section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ( 5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2012) ) seeking the disclosure of certain information…”
Rock River Times v. Rockford Public School District 205 (2012) illappct “) 5 ILCS 140/11(i) (West 2008). Section 11(i) was then amended to read that “[i]f a person seeking the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record prevails in a proceeding under this Section, the court shall award such person reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Chicago Tribune Co. v. Cook County Assessor's Office (2018) illappct “That policy is that "all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government.”
Perry v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation (2018) ill “Perry and Perry & Associates, LLC (collectively, Perry), and (2) the Institute for Justice (Institute), filed causes of action under section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2012)) seeking the disclosure of certain information from the…”
Uptown People's Law Center v. The Department of Corrections (2014) illappct “In furtherance of that objective, a public entity generally has five business days to respond to a request for information (5 ILCS 140/3(d) (West 2010)), and any person denied access to public record may file suit for relief (5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2010)). Moreover, the purpose of…”
— 5 ILCS 140/11(j) — 30 cases
Rock River Times v. Rockford Public School District 205 (2012) illappct “) 5 ILCS 140/11(i) (West 2008). Section 11(i) was then amended to read that “[i]f a person seeking the right to inspect or receive a copy of a public record prevails in a proceeding under this Section, the court shall award such person reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.”
Perry v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (2018) ill “Perry and Perry *1019 & Associates, LLC (collectively, Perry), and (2) the Institute for Justice (Institute), filed causes of action under section 11 of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) ( 5 ILCS 140/11 (West 2012) ) seeking the disclosure of certain information…”
City of Champaign v. Madigan (2013) illappct “5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010). Section 11(a) does not provide for injunctive relief during the administrative review process.”
Turner v. Joliet Police Department (2019) illappct
Kalven v. The City of Chicago (2014) illappct “See 5 ILCS 140/11(a) (West 2010). The circuit court has the authority to determine whether the records are subject to FOIA and, if so, whether they are exempt from disclosure.”
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.