735 ILCS 110/5
Public policy
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
IL-ILGAilga.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(735 ILCS 110/5)
Sec. 5. Public policy. Pursuant to the fundamental philosophy of the American constitutional form of government, it is declared to be the public policy of the State of Illinois that the constitutional rights of citizens and organizations to be involved and participate freely in the process of government must be encouraged and safeguarded with great diligence. The information, reports, opinions, claims, arguments, and other expressions provided by citizens are vital to effective law enforcement, the operation of government, the making of public policy and decisions, and the continuation of representative democracy. The laws, courts, and other agencies of this State must provide the utmost protection for freedom of the press and the free exercise of these rights of petition, speech, association, and government participation. Civil actions for money damages have been filed against citizens and organizations of this State as a result of their valid exercise of their constitutional rights to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and communicate with government. The press opining, reporting, or investigating matters of public concern is participating and communicating with the government. There has been a disturbing increase in lawsuits termed "Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation" in government or "SLAPPs" as they are popularly called. The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights. This abuse of the judicial process can and has been used as a means of intimidating, harassing, or punishing citizens and organizations, including the press, for involving themselves in public affairs. It is in the public interest and it is the purpose of this Act to strike a balance between the rights of persons to file lawsuits for injury and the constitutional rights of persons to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in government; to protect and encourage public participation in government to the maximum extent permitted by law; to establish an efficient process for identification and adjudication of SLAPPs; and to provide for attorney's fees and costs to prevailing movants. As such, this Act should be construed broadly in striking the balance of rights described in this Act. (Source: P.A. 104-431, eff. 8-21-25.) Notes of Decisions
Cited in 39
cases (5 in the last 5 years), 2009–2026 · leading case: Wright Development Group, LLC v. Walsh
Wright Development Group, LLC v. Walsh (2010)
“In this motion, Walsh asserted that Wright Development's lawsuit was a "strategic lawsuit against public participation," or "SLAPP" (735 ILCS 110/5 (West 2008)), which should be dismissed under the Act.”
Sandholm v. Kuecker (2012)
“2d at 630 (citing 735 ILCS 110/5 (West 2008)). The paradigm SLAPP suit is “one filed by developers, unhappy with public protest over a proposed development, filed against leading critics in order to silence criticism of the proposed development.”
Sandholm v. Kuecker (2012)
“2d 389 (citing 735 ILCS 110/5 (West 2008)). The paradigm SLAPP suit is "one filed by developers, unhappy with public protest over a proposed development, filed against leading critics in order to silence criticism of the proposed development.”
Hytel Group, Inc. v. Butler (2010)
“” 735 ILCS 110/5 (West 2008). The Act is one of many anti-SLAPP statutes enacted by states in the last several years.”
Shoreline Towers Condominium Association v. Gassman (2010)
“” 735 ILCS 110/5 (West 2008). Gassman contended that she brought her original claims against Shoreline because she believed she was the victim of religious discrimination by Shoreline when it repeatedly removed her mezuzah from the doorpost of her condominium.”
Nelson v. Chicago Park District (2011)
“On February 17, 2009, the Latin II plaintiffs filed a motion to strike and dismiss (motion to strike), arguing that the Illinois Citizen Participation Act (735 ILCS 110/5 et seq. (West 2008)) barred CPD’s Rule 137 motion for sanctions.”
Sandholm v. Kuecker (2010)
“” 735 ILCS 110/5 (West 2008). Section 15 of the Act provides: “Applicability.”
Helping Others Maintain Environmental Standards v. Bos (2010)
“” 735 ILCS 110/5 (West 2008). The Act’s purpose is to eliminate SLAPPs and protect citizen participation in public affairs by: (1) immunizing individuals from lawsuits based on acts taken in furtherance of their rights to free speech and to petition government; (2) creating an…”
Stein v. Krislov (2010)
“The Act provides: “The threat of SLAPPs significantly chills and diminishes citizen participation in government, voluntary public service, and the exercise of these important constitutional rights [to petition, speak freely, associate freely, and otherwise participate in and…”
Kainrath v. Grider (2018)
“" 735 ILCS 110/5 (West 2014). The Act provides that "[a]cts in furtherance of the constitutional rights to petition, speech, association, and participation in government are immune from liability, regardless of intent or purpose, except when not genuinely aimed at procuring…”
Garrido v. Arena (2013)
“See 735 ILCS 110/5 (West 2010). Yet it is impossible to determine whether a lawsuit is a SLAPP based solely on the face of the complaint because, when considering a motion to dismiss under section 2-615, we must presume that all well-pled facts in the complaint are true.”
Mund v. Brown (2009)
“See 735 ILCS 110/5 (West Supp. 2007). On February 1, 2008, Robert Furkin and Rebecca Brown also moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the same basis.”
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.
|