ILCS » Chapter 65 · Act 5
Illinois Compiled Statutes

65 ILCS 5/11-13-13 (2026)

All final administrative decisions of the board of appeals under this Division 13 shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Review Law, and all amendments and modifications thereof, and the rules adopted pursuant thereto

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(65 ILCS 5/11-13-13) (from Ch. 24, par. 11-13-13)
    Sec. 11-13-13. All final administrative decisions of the board of appeals under this Division 13 shall be subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Review Law, and all amendments and modifications thereof, and the rules adopted pursuant thereto. The term "administrative decision" is defined as in Section 3-101 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(Source: P.A. 82-783.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1996–2026 · leading case: Mavourneen Doherty v. City of Chicago, Graham C. Grady, Judith C. Rice, 75 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 1996).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mavourneen Doherty v. City of Chicago, Graham C. Grady, Judith C. Rice, 75 F.3d 318 (7th Cir. 1996). “3 65 ILCS 5/11-13-13 (1992); Municipal Code of Chicago, 111.”
Hawthorne v. Vill. of Olympia Fields, 790 N.E.2d 832 (Ill. 2003). “See 65 ILCS 5/11-13-13 (West 2000). That includes decisions regarding variances.”
Mercatus Grp., LLC v. Lake Forest Hosp., 641 F.3d 834 (7th Cir. 2011). “Mercatus had the opportunity to present this argument to the Zoning Board of Appeals, 65 ILCS 5/ll-13-3(f); 65 ILCS 5/11— 13-12, and then to the state courts on administrative review, 65 ILCS 5/11-13-13, but there is no indication in the record that Mercatus ever did so.”
C.L.U.B. v. City of Chicago, 157 F. Supp. 2d 903 (N.D. Ill. 2001). “3-4; 65 ILCS 5/11-13-13; 735 ILCS 5/3-104. 9 Therefore, Plaintiffs’ claim the Zoning Ordinance fails to provide adequate due process as required by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is rejected.”
Conaghan v. The City of Harvard, 2016 IL App (2d) 151034 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “Section 11-13-11 (65 ILCS 5/11-13-11 (West 2014)) sets out procedural requirements for every grant of a variance or special use, whether made by a municipality’s board of appeals or by ordinance.”
Stephen Jackson v. Vill. of W. Springs, 612 F. App'x 842 (7th Cir. 2015). “Because Jackson did not appeal the Board’s decisions to the zoning board of appeals, see 65 ILCS 5/11-13-12, and then to the state courts on administrative review, see 65 ILCS 5/11-13-13, or pursue other remedies that Illinois has provided for property owners challenging…”
Trs. of Marion Kingdom Hall of Jehovah's Witnesses v. City of Marion, 638 F. Supp. 2d 962 (S.D. Ill. 2007). “2001) (holding that the procedural due process rights of certain churches aggrieved by a decision of a city zoning board of appeals denying their challenge to an ordinance restricting their operations in commercial, business, and manufacturing areas were satisfied by the…”
Conaghan v. The City of Harvard, 2016 IL App (2d) 151034 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “Section 11-13-13 (65 ILCS 5/11-13-13 (West 2014)) makes all final administrative decisions of the board of appeals subject to judicial review under the Administrative Review Law.”
McMillan v. The Bd. of Zoning Appeals & Plan. of the City of Charleston, 2022 IL App (4th) 210501-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2022). “See 65 ILCS 5/11-13-13 (West 2018). ¶ 16 Here, the parties do not dispute BZAP’s factual findings.”
Gentlemen Gaming, LTD v. East Peoria, City of (C.D. Ill. 2019). “East Peoria Code of Ordinances § 5-11- 3(d); 65 ILCS 5/11-13-13; City of Chi. v. Int’l Coll.”
Neighbors Against A Marijuana Dispensary, INC v. Zoning Bd., 2026 IL App (1st) 241910 (Ill. App. Ct. 2026). “65 ILCS 5/11-13-13 (West 2022); 735 ILCS 5/3-102 (West 2022).”
Taylor v. The Zoning Bd. of Appeals of the City of Evanston (Ill. App. Ct. 2007). “65 ILCS 5/11-13-13 (West 2004). The findings and conclusions of an administrative agency on questions of fact are deemed prima facie true and correct unless found to be against the manifest weight of the evidence.”
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.