Case Law: Restrictive Covenants
May 27, 2004 by dwagner · Leave a Comment
Building-approval covenant prohibited construction on property without approval of association board, but if a lawsuit is not filed before the work is done, the covenant is deemed to have been complied with; lawsuit in this case was filed after tennis court lights were installed, and the trial court therefore properly found for defendants. Read more
Case Law: Utilities – Preemption
May 22, 2004 by dwagner · Leave a Comment
Municipality’s authority to enforce zoning ordinance to halt or regulate construction of electric utility’s transmission line was preempted by Illinois Commerce Commission rules. Read more
Case Law: Eminent Domain Valuation
May 19, 2004 by dwagner · Leave a Comment
Because defendants had ample time in which to prepare for trial on taking of their land, trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying continuance so that defendants could obtain appraisals for land and for one of defendants to obtain counsel. Read more
Case Law: Religious Use – Zoning Permits Part III
May 19, 2004 by dwagner · Leave a Comment
After city denied church’s application for special-use permit to operate church, trial court erred in summarily dismissing church’s complaint for declaratory judgment without giving plaintiff notice or opportunity to be heard on issues on which trial court based its dismissal. Read more
Case Law: Religious Schools
May 16, 2004 by dwagner · Leave a Comment
Trial court correctly found that defendants were in violation of county zoning code by operating a private religious school in a garage on their residential property; the concurrent use of the property as a single-family residence and a school was permissible only if one of these uses could be considered as subordinate to the other and in this case a school was not something customarily found as incidental to a single-family home. Read more
Case Law: Zoning Variance
May 6, 2004 by dwagner · Leave a Comment
Trial court correctly affirmed zoning board’s finding that defendants were entitled to variance for construction of house addition in their side yard; evidence showed that defendants satisfied standards of zoning ordinance and proved each essential element required for variance. Read more
