ILCS » Chapter 50 · Act 505
Illinois Compiled Statutes

50 ILCS 505/1 (2026)

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Local Government Prompt Payment Act"

✓ laws through the 2026 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(50 ILCS 505/1) (from Ch. 85, par. 5601)
    Sec. 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Local Government Prompt Payment Act".
(Source: P.A. 84-731.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Patrick Eng'g, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148, 976 N.E.2d 318.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Patrick Eng'g, Inc. v. City of Naperville, 2012 IL 113148, 976 N.E.2d 318. · cites it 2× “In count III, entitled “Local Government Prompt Payments Act,” Patrick Engineering incorporated the allegations of count II, and further alleged that that statute (50 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2010)) required the City to approve or disapprove of the invoices within 30 days.”
Blinderman Constr. Co. v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 757 N.E.2d 931 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 2001). “The amended complaint alleged in count II a violation of the Local Government Prompt Payment Act (Prompt Payment Act) (50 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 1992)). Blinderman contended that under the Prompt Payment Act any bill for goods or services provided by a contractor to a…”
Superior Structures Co. v. City of Sesser, 660 N.E.2d 1362 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. 1996). · cites it 2× “Count I sought a sum of money owed pursuant to contract, and count II sought interest pursuant to the Local Government Prompt Payment Act (50 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 1992)). Third-party defendant United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company is not a party to this appeal.”
Superior Structures Co. v. City of Sesser, 686 N.E.2d 710 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. 1997). “50 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 1992). The trial court found in Superior’s favor on count I and entered judgment for sums due minus a setoff, and the court found in favor of the City on count II, denying Superior’s claim for interest pursuant to the Act.”
Patrick Eng'g v. City of Naperville, 2011 IL App (2d) 100695, 955 N.E.2d 1273. “Count V was brought under the Local Government Prompt Payment Act (50 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2010)) and contained essentially the same allegations as count IV.”
John's Pro-Tree Serv., Inc. v. Vill. of Dolton, 2026 IL App (1st) 250027-U. · cites it 2× “The complaint asserted claims for breach of contract, violation of the Local Government Prompt Payment Act (50 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 2024)) (the Prompt Payment Act), fraudulent misrepresentation, quantum meruit, unjust enrichment, and promissory estoppel.”
Omega Med. Imaging, LLC v. Cook Cnty., No. 1:19-cv-04323 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12, 2020). “For the reasons below, the Court denies Cook County’s motion to dismiss. Background The Court takes the following facts from the complaint and treats them as true for the purposes of deciding this motion.”
Blinderman Constr. Co. v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist., No. 1-00-1940 Rel (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. Sept. 4, 2001). “The amended complaint alleged in count II a violation of the Local Government Prompt Payment Act (50 ILCS 505/1 et seq. (West 1992)). Blinderman contended that under the Prompt Payment Act any bill for goods or services provided by a contractor to a contracting governmental…”
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.