ILCS » Chapter 745 · Act 65
Illinois Compiled Statutes

745 ILCS 65/1 (2026)

This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act"

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(745 ILCS 65/1) (from Ch. 70, par. 31)
    Sec. 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act".
    The purpose of this Act is to encourage owners of land to make land and water areas available to any individual or members of the public for recreational or conservation purposes by limiting their liability toward persons entering thereon for such purposes.
(Source: P.A. 94-625, eff. 8-18-05.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 22 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2022 · leading case: Hall v. Henn, 802 N.E.2d 797 (Ill. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Hall v. Henn, 802 N.E.2d 797 (Ill. 2003). · cites it 3× “JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court: In this case, we are asked to construe the scope of the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act (745 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West 2002)). Specifically, we are asked to decide whether the Act’s limitation of liability applies…”
Snyder v. Olmstead, 634 N.E.2d 756 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 5× “(745 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West 1992).) Defendant also filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the sufficiency of the willful and wanton allegations.”
Bier v. Leanna Lakeside Prop. Ass'n, 711 N.E.2d 773 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “After discovery in the case was substantially completed, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment based on the following arguments: (1) the defendant was entitled to immunity from suit under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act (745 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West…”
Turgeon v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 630 N.E.2d 1318 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). · cites it 3× “31 through 37 (now 745 ILCS 65/1 through 7 (West 1992))) with its willful and wanton standard of liability; and (4) granted summary judgment dismissing two counts of plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint alleging Edison was liable under the Public Utilities Act (Ill.”
Joshua Cacia, a Minor, by & Through His Mother & Next Friend, Paula Randolph & Joseph C. Jerrick v. Norfolk & W. Ry. Co., 290 F.3d 914 (7th Cir. 2002). · cites it 2× “The trial court ruled that plaintiffs’ negligence claims failed under the Illinois’s Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act, 745 ILCS 65/1 (Recreational Use Act), which serves to immunize landowners whose land is being used for recreational purposes from all but wanton and…”
Ford Ex Rel. Ford v. Nairn, 717 N.E.2d 525 (Ill. App. Ct. 1999). · cites it 2× “In addition, the trial court found the Nairns are protected from liability for the use of their personal property located on their land pursuant to the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act (Recreational Use Act) (745 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West 1992)). Further discovery…”
Vaughn v. Barton, 933 N.E.2d 355 (Ill. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 4× “After the evidence was presented, the circuit court found the immunity of the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act (the Recreational Use Act) (745 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West 2002)) applicable and granted a directed verdict in favor of the defendants.”
Hoye v. Illinois Power Co., 646 N.E.2d 651 (Ill. App. Ct. 1995). · cites it 2× “The issues on appeal are whether (1) defendant is immune from liability under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act (Recreational Use Act) (745 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West 1992)) and (2) plaintiffs’ second-amended complaint failed to state a cause of action for willful…”
Baggio v. Chicago Park Dist., 682 N.E.2d 429 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997). · cites it 2× “Plaintiff claims, however, that liability should nonetheless be imposed upon defendant under the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act (Recreational Use Act) (745 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West 1994)). Plaintiff claims that the Recreational Use Act is applicable to this case,…”
Torf v. Commonwealth Edison, 644 N.E.2d 467 (Ill. App. Ct. 1994). “According to defendants, the risk in this case, dangerous currents, is a risk inherent in the nature of the water itself and, under the open and obvious danger rule, defendants cannot be liable for injuries caused by such inherent dangers.”
Fraser v. Universities Rsch. Ass'n, 721 N.E.2d 1143 (Ill. 1999). · cites it 2× “The circuit court found the immunity of the Recreational Use of Land and Water Areas Act (Recreational Use Act) (745 ILCS 65/1 et seq. (West 1994)) applicable and granted summary judgment in favor of defendant.”
Holm v. Kodat, 2022 IL 127511 (Ill. 2022). “745 ILCS 65/1 (West 2020). In addition, in the Recreational Trails of Illinois Act, the General Assembly found that recreation is an important industry in Illinois and its growth should be encouraged.”
Show all 22 citing cases →
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.