ILCS » Chapter 70 · Act 2605
Illinois Compiled Statutes

70 ILCS 2605/19 (2026)

Every sanitary district shall be liable for all damages to real estate within or without such district which shall be overflowed or otherwise damaged by reason of the construction, enlargement or use of any channel, ditch, drain, outlet or other improvement under the provisions of this act; and actions to recover such damages may be brought in the county where such real estate is situated, or in the county where such sanitary district is located, at the option of the party claiming to be injured

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(70 ILCS 2605/19) (from Ch. 42, par. 339)
    Sec. 19. Every sanitary district shall be liable for all damages to real estate within or without such district which shall be overflowed or otherwise damaged by reason of the construction, enlargement or use of any channel, ditch, drain, outlet or other improvement under the provisions of this act; and actions to recover such damages may be brought in the county where such real estate is situated, or in the county where such sanitary district is located, at the option of the party claiming to be injured. And in case judgment is rendered against such district for damage, the plaintiff shall also recover his reasonable attorneys' fees to be taxed as costs of suit: Provided, however, it shall appear on the hearing of plaintiff's motion to tax such attorney's fees, that the plaintiff notified the trustees of such district, in writing, at least 60 days before suit was commenced by leaving a copy of such notice with some one of the trustees of such district, stating that he claims damages to the amount of .... dollars by reason of (here insert the cause of damage) and intends to sue for the same: And, provided further, that the amount recovered shall be larger than the amount offered by said trustees (if anything) as a compromise for damages sustained.
(Source: Laws 1907, p. 284.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2025 · leading case: Pineschi v. Rock River Water Reclamation Dist., 805 N.E.2d 1241 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Pineschi v. Rock River Water Reclamation Dist., 805 N.E.2d 1241 (Ill. App. Ct. 2004). · cites it 4× “Count IV sought damages under section 19 of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act (the Act) (70 ILCS 2605/19 (West 2000)). Counts V and VI alleged a taking of plaintiffs property and sought compensation under, respectively, the fifth amendment to the federal…”
Yang v. City of Chicago, 745 N.E.2d 541 (Ill. 2001). “1 70 ILCS 2605/19 (West 1998); 105 ILCS 425/26.”
Town of Cicero v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 2012 IL App (1st) 112164 (Ill. App. Ct. 2012). · cites it 2× “Count III sought monetary damages under section 19 of the Act (70 ILCS 2605/19 (West 2010)), based on the District’s alleged failure to accurately predict and manage sewage backup flooding, which resulted in damage to real and personal property during the periods of heavy…”
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Heneghan Wrecking & Excavating Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 133376 (Ill. App. Ct. 2016). “In comparison, in section 19 of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act (70 ILCS 2605/19 (West 2006)), the legislature provided that “[e]very sanitary district shall be liable for all damages to real estate within or without such district which shall be overflowed or…”
Great Am. Ins. Co. v. Heneghan Wrecking & Excavating Co., 2015 IL App (1st) 133376 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “In comparison, in section 19 of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act (70 ILCS 2605/19 (West 2006)), the legislature provided that "[e]very sanitary district shall be liable for all damages to real estate within or without such district which shall be overflowed or…”
Mabry v. Vill. of Glenwood, 2015 IL App (1st) 140356 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “2 Count I alleged that all of the defendants, except for the State of Illinois and the Illinois Department of Transportation, were “sanitary districts” subject to the provisions of 70 ILCS 2605/19; count II alleged a claim of common law trespass; count III alleged an action for…”
Hampton v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 2015 IL App (1st) 132317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “¶2 Count I of the complaint sought damages under section 19 of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act (70 ILCS 2605/19 (West 2010)) (Act). Count II of the complaint alleged that the plaintiffs’ private property was taken and damaged by the defendant for public use…”
Hampton v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago, 2025 IL App (1st) 231381 (Ill. App. Ct. 2025). “¶ 31 Next, the District argues that this court lacks jurisdiction to consider plaintiffs’ section 19 claims under the Act (70 ILCS 2605/19 (West 2022)) because plaintiffs failed to list the trial court’s orders dismissing these claims in the notice of appeal.”
Hampton v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist., 2015 IL App (1st) 132317 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “¶2 Count I of the complaint sought damages under section 19 of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act (70 ILCS 2605/19 (West 2010)) (the Act). Count II of the complaint alleged that the plaintiffs' private property was taken and damaged by the 2 No.”
Mabry v. Vill. of Glenwood, 2015 IL App (1st) 140356 (Ill. App. Ct. 2015). “2 Count I alleged that all of the defendants, except for the State of Illinois and the Illinois Department of Transportation, were “sanitary districts” subject to the provisions of 70 ILCS 2605/19; count II alleged a claim of common law trespass; count III alleged an action for…”
Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. Metro. Water Reclamation Dist. of Greater Chicago (N.D. Ill. 2025). “Travelers also relies on Section 19 of the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act, 70 ILCS 2605/19, to argue the District is statutorily liable.”
Yang v. City of Chicago (Ill. 2001). “FOOTNOTES 1: 1 70 ILCS 2605/19 (West 1998); 105 ILCS 425/26.”
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.