[{"dedup_key":"2-05-0355","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Feret v. Schillerstrom","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2005,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-05-0355","circuit_docket":"03-CH-440","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Hutchinson","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Du Page County Board","requesting_party":"Edwina Feret","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether the Du Page County Board violated the Open Meetings Act by enacting a resolution without proper agenda notice. While the court previously allowed the claim to proceed, this appeal focused on the mootness of the claim and the denial of sanctions against the defendants, ultimately affirming the denial of sanctions while remanding the underlying OMA claim.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/2050355.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:03.896650","site_category":"Meeting Notices & Agendas","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"4-05-0943","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"McKee v. The Board of Trustees of the Champaign Police Pension Fund","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2005,"county":"Champaign","appellate_docket":"4-05-0943","circuit_docket":"03-MR-392","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Cook","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":["2(c)(5)"],"public_body":"Board of Trustees of the Champaign Police Pension Fund","requesting_party":"Eric McKee","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of disability benefits, holding that the Board did not violate the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session pursuant to its rules and regulations. The court found no evidence of procedural impropriety regarding the Board's closed-session deliberations.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/4050943.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:05.173271","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"2-06-0197","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Galena Gazette Publications, Inc. v. County of Jo Daviess","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2006,"county":"Jo Daviess","appellate_docket":"2-06-0197","circuit_docket":"05-CH-15","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Grometer","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":["2(c)(5)"],"public_body":"County of Jo Daviess, Jo Daviess County Board, Jo Daviess Planning and Development Committee, and Galena City Council","requesting_party":"Galena Gazette Publications, Inc., Journal Standard, Inc., and Telegraph Herald","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court held that the defendants' closed sessions were properly conducted under the real estate acquisition exception of the Open Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/2(c)(5)). Consequently, the court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the plaintiffs and entered summary judgment in favor of the defendants.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/2060197.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:05.173511","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"2-06-0296","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Kibort v. Westrom","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2006,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-06-0296","circuit_docket":"05-CH-784","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Hutchinson","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"Du Page County Election Commission","requesting_party":"Scott Kibort","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Du Page County Election Commission properly denied a FOIA request for election materials because the Election Code (10 ILCS 5/17-20, 17-22) specifically prohibited their disclosure. The court further found that the Commission's denial letter sufficiently complied with the requirements of section 9(b) of the FOIA by citing the relevant statutory exemptions.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/2060296.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:05.987902","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"2-07-1262","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Sage Information Services and Roger W. Hurlbert v. Gary A. King, Du Page County Clerk","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2007,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-07-1262","circuit_docket":"07-MR-712","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Burke","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Du Page County Clerk","requesting_party":"Sage Information Services and Roger W. Hurlbert","disposition":"reversed_and_remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the trial court erred in granting a motion to dismiss because the defendant failed to provide a factual basis to establish that the $5,500 fee charged for a database compilation was reasonable under FOIA. The case was remanded for further proceedings to resolve the material issue of fact regarding the actual cost of reproduction.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2071262.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:07.274367","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"5-07-0300","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"DesPain v. City of Collinsville","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2007,"county":"Madison","appellate_docket":"5-07-0300","circuit_docket":"01-MR-154","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Wexstten","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Collinsville","requesting_party":"Robert DesPain","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The plaintiff appealed a summary judgment regarding his FOIA requests to the City of Collinsville. The appellate court affirmed in part and reversed in part the circuit court's ruling concerning the disclosure of requested public records.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/cleaned_text_files/5070300.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:07.274753","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"1-08-1820","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Newman, Raiz and Shelmadine, LLC v. Brown","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2008,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-08-1820","circuit_docket":"04 CH 19350","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Tully","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Clerk of the Circuit Court of Cook County","requesting_party":"Newman, Raiz and Shelmadine, LLC","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether the Clerk of the Circuit Court could prohibit the use of portable scanners to copy public records under FOIA. The appellate court held that the Clerk must permit the use of personal scanners provided they do not interfere with operations or damage document integrity.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1081820.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:07.635475","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"1-08-1835","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Kopchar v. City of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2008,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-08-1835","circuit_docket":"08-MR-292","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Toomin","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Charles W. Kopchar","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the City of Chicago was not required under FOIA to disclose the specific criteria or standards used to evaluate firefighter physical abilities tests. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding the requested information exempt from disclosure.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1081835.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:07.767674","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"1-08-2073","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2008,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-08-2073","circuit_docket":"07 CH 3622","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Gallagher","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department and Joliet Police Department","requesting_party":"National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers","disposition":"other","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether data used for a legislatively mandated study on eyewitness identification procedures was subject to disclosure under FOIA. The case involved consolidated appeals regarding the denial of records by the Chicago and Joliet Police Departments.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1082073.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:08.713781","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"4-08-0117","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Wyman v. Schweighart","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2008,"county":"Champaign","appellate_docket":"4-08-0117","circuit_docket":"06-MR-367","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Cook","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Champaign","requesting_party":"Ruth E. Wyman","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the Open Meetings Act does not explicitly prohibit a public body from inviting non-members to attend a closed session. The court declined to read such a prohibition into the statute, noting that the authority to regulate attendance at closed meetings rests with the General Assembly.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/4080117.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:09.148501","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"2008-10-09"},{"dedup_key":"4-08-0733","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Gekas v. Williamson","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2008,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-08-0733","circuit_docket":"07-MR-37","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Appleton","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)(ii)"],"public_body":"Sangamon County Sheriff's Office","requesting_party":"G. Mark Gekas, D.D.S.","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that records concerning allegations of misconduct by a deputy sheriff in the performance of his public duties are not exempt from disclosure under the FOIA personnel file exemption. The court affirmed the production of internal-affairs files while remanding for the disclosure of additional files related to misconduct allegations, subject to redaction of exempt personal information.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4080733.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:09.148609","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"2-09-0100","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Rockford Police Benevolent and Protective Association, Unit #6 v. Morrissey","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2009,"county":"Winnebago","appellate_docket":"2-09-0100","circuit_docket":"08-CH-349","published":0,"authoring_justice":"O'Malley","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Rockford Police Department","requesting_party":"Rockford Police Benevolent and Protective Association, Unit #6","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff, compelling the disclosure of survey results under FOIA. The court further held that the trial court did not err in awarding attorney fees, finding that the plaintiff's request served a public interest rather than a purely commercial one.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2090100.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:09.901337","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"2-09-0331","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"In re Petition to Disconnect Certain Territory (Foxfield Subdivision) v. Village of Campton Hills","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2009,"county":"Kane","appellate_docket":"2-09-0331","circuit_docket":"08-MC-15","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Burke","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Village of Campton Hills","requesting_party":"Petitioners of the Foxfield Subdivision","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a petition to disconnect territory, holding that the Village's meeting agenda and procedures did not violate the Open Meetings Act. The court found that the meeting was held at a reasonable time with sufficient public notice and that past agenda practices did not establish a legal requirement for future agendas.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/2090331.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:10.747295","site_category":"Meeting Notices & Agendas","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"3-09-0175","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Sage Information Services and Roger W. Hurlbert v. David Henderson","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2009,"county":"Grundy","appellate_docket":"3-09-0175","circuit_docket":"07-MR-17","published":0,"authoring_justice":"McDade","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Grundy County Supervisor of Assessments","requesting_party":"Sage Information Services and Roger W. Hurlbert","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint, holding that section 9-20 of the Property Tax Code acts as a specific statutory bar to the disclosure of the requested property tax records. The court concluded that the Property Tax Code controls over the general disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act in this context.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3090175.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:11.394820","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"SCT-107139","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Stern v. Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"Supreme","year":2009,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":null,"circuit_docket":null,"published":0,"authoring_justice":"Fitzgerald","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)"],"public_body":"Wheaton-Warrenville Community Unit School District 200","requesting_party":"Mark O. Stern","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that a school superintendent's employment contract is not exempt from disclosure under FOIA as a personnel file, as it constitutes a contract dealing with the expenditure of public funds. The Court ordered the disclosure of the contract, subject only to the redaction of specific private information.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/107139.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:12.568862","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2009-05-21"},{"dedup_key":"1-10-0423","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"LeCompte v. Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of Barrington Hills","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2010,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-10-0423","circuit_docket":"09 CH 00934","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Neville","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":["2(c)(4)"],"public_body":"Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of Barrington Hills","requesting_party":"LeCompte","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed a zoning dispute regarding the commercial boarding of horses. The plaintiffs raised an Open Meetings Act claim regarding closed session procedures for the first time on appeal, which the court found forfeited.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/1100423_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:13.142779","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"1-10-3692","dedup_key_type":"docket_fallback","neutral_citation":null,"case_name":"Berge v. Heilmann","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2010,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-10-3692","circuit_docket":"09 CH 27729","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Hoffman","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Village of Oak Lawn","requesting_party":"Karen Berge","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's ruling that the Village of Oak Lawn did not violate the Open Meetings Act during a closed session. The court held that the discussions were permissible and that no final action was taken in violation of the Act, while also noting the plaintiff forfeited her due process claim regarding access to meeting recordings.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/cleaned_text_files/1103692_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:13.178302","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"2011 IL App (1st) 100423","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2011 IL App (1st) 100423","case_name":"LeCompte v. Zoning Board of Appeals","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2011,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-10-0423","circuit_docket":"09-CH-00934","published":1,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":["2(c)(4)"],"public_body":"Zoning Board of Appeals for the Village of Barrington Hills","requesting_party":"Benjamin B. LeCompte, Cathleen B. LeCompte, and North Star Trust Company","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The plaintiffs raised an Open Meetings Act claim regarding closed session procedures for the first time on appeal. The court held that the issue was forfeited because it was not raised before the Zoning Board or in the complaint for administrative review.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/cleaned_text_files/1100423.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:16.492197","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"2011-06-30"},{"dedup_key":"2011 IL App (3d) 090138","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2011 IL App (3d) 090138","case_name":"Taliani v. Herrmann","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2011,"county":"Attorney for Bureau","appellate_docket":"3-09-0138","circuit_docket":"07-MR-30","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Schmidt","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"State's Attorney for Bureau County","requesting_party":"Steven A. Taliani","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court reversed an order awarding attorney fees under the Freedom of Information Act, holding that the Act is not the proper legal vehicle for obtaining grand jury transcripts from a criminal trial.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3090138.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:16.492425","site_category":"Public Records Definition","date_decided":"2011-08-19"},{"dedup_key":"2012 IL App (1st) 100632","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2012 IL App (1st) 100632","case_name":"Watkins v. McCarthy","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2012,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-10-0632","circuit_docket":"09-CH-9105","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Rochford","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(n)"],"public_body":"City of Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Kilroy Watkins","disposition":"reversed_and_remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court reversed the dismissal of an inmate's FOIA request for police misconduct records. The court remanded the case for an in camera inspection to determine the applicability of FOIA exemptions, specifically noting the potential relevance of section 7(1)(n) regarding disciplinary records.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1100632.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:17.204530","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2012-11-05"},{"dedup_key":"2012 IL App (1st) 112785U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2012 IL App (1st) 112785U","case_name":"Mental Health America of Illinois v. Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2012,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-11-2785","circuit_docket":"10 CH 18705","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Murphy","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Drug and Therapeutics Committee of the Illinois State Medical Society","requesting_party":"Mental Health America of Illinois","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a mandamus petition, holding that the Drug and Therapeutics Committee of the Illinois State Medical Society is not a 'public body' subject to the Open Meetings Act. The court determined that the Committee's lack of integration into the Department of Healthcare and Family Services' organizational structure outweighed other factors.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/1112785_r23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:19.028073","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"2012-09-28"},{"dedup_key":"2012 IL App (1st) 121864-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2012 IL App (1st) 121864-U","case_name":"Gupta v. Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2012,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-12-1864","circuit_docket":"12 CH 19645","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Harris","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois State Board of Pharmacy","requesting_party":null,"disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a stay, holding that the Board acted with proper authority because a quorum was present and a majority voted on the recommendations. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that the agency's order was void due to alleged procedural violations of the Pharmacy Act and Open Meetings Act requirements.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/cleaned_text_files/1121864_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:19.162866","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"2012-12-11"},{"dedup_key":"2012 IL App (2d) 110564","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2012 IL App (2d) 110564","case_name":"Heinrich v. White","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2012,"county":"Kane","appellate_docket":"2-11-0564","circuit_docket":"11-CH-558","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Schostok","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["3(g)"],"public_body":"Secretary of State","requesting_party":"Paul Heinrich","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court reversed the dismissal of a FOIA request for administrative license revocation notices, holding that the trial court should have considered whether the plaintiff wanted the records with exempt information redacted and whether compliance would be unduly burdensome under 5 ILCS 140/3(g). The court affirmed that the public body is not required to create new documents, but remanded for further proceedings regarding the production of existing, redactable records.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2110564.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:20.122658","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2012-08-27"},{"dedup_key":"2012 IL App (2d) 110879","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2012 IL App (2d) 110879","case_name":"Rock River Times v. Rockford Public School District 205","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2012,"county":"Winnebago","appellate_docket":"2-11-0879","circuit_docket":"10-MR-768","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Bowman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Rockford Public School District 205","requesting_party":"The Rock River Times and Joe McGehee","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party entitled to attorney fees because the school disclosed the requested records before a court order. However, the court affirmed the imposition of a $2,500 civil penalty against the school for its willful and intentional violation of the Freedom of Information Act.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2110879.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:20.553081","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2012-10-03"},{"dedup_key":"2012 IL App (3d) 100206","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2012 IL App (3d) 100206","case_name":"Parker v. Nichting","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2012,"county":"Peoria","appellate_docket":"3-10-0206","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Peoria","requesting_party":"George Parker","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that while the plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees for a successful Open Meetings Act claim, the trial court abused its discretion by reducing the fee award without sufficient findings. The court affirmed the denial of punitive and compensatory damages, noting that such damages are not available under the Open Meetings Act.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3100206.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:21.144241","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2012-02-01"},{"dedup_key":"2012 IL App (4th) 120331","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2012 IL App (4th) 120331","case_name":"Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. WRB Refining, LP","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2012,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-12-0331","circuit_docket":"12-MR-224","published":1,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Pollution Control Board","requesting_party":"Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 et al.","disposition":"affirmed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed a preliminary injunction against the Pollution Control Board regarding Open Meetings Act violations, but modified the order to remove specific restrictions on meetings concerning the named parties. The court held that the injunction was authorized under section 3(c) of the Open Meetings Act to prevent future statutory violations.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4120331.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:22.555803","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"2012-07-11"},{"dedup_key":"2012 IL App (5th) 110580","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2012 IL App (5th) 110580","case_name":"Sage Information Services v. Humm","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2012,"county":"Her Capacity as Chief","appellate_docket":"5-11-0580","circuit_docket":"10-MR-45, 11-MR-19","published":1,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Franklin County Assessment Officer and County Treasurer","requesting_party":"Sage Information Services and Roger W. Hurlbert","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that FOIA, rather than the Property Tax Code, governs fees for electronic property assessment records. The court reversed the denial of the request to the assessment officer but affirmed the denial regarding the treasurer, as the treasurer did not possess the records in the requested electronic format.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/5110580.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:23.003920","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2012-10-05"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (1st) 113419-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (1st) 113419-U","case_name":"Hughes v. Ricker","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2013,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-11-3419","circuit_docket":"11 CH 15943","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Taylor","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Lemont-Bromberek Combined School District 113A","requesting_party":"Janet Hughes","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine did not apply to a former school board member's FOIA-related claim because she failed to allege a general policy of denial. The court further ruled that she failed to plead a prima facie case for relief, though sanctions against her were not warranted.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/1113419_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:23.601648","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2013-01-25"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (1st) 120560-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (1st) 120560-U","case_name":"Warren R. Garlick v. Lisa Madigan","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2013,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-12-0560","circuit_docket":"11 CH 34198","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Hoffman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Office of the Attorney General of the State of Illinois","requesting_party":"Warren R. Garlick","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, finding that the plaintiff had explicitly stated he did not seek the redacted information in his initial request. The court further held that the plaintiff's subsequent correspondence requesting a review by the Public Access Counselor did not constitute a new, valid FOIA request for the redacted materials.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1120560_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:24.043729","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (1st) 121668","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (1st) 121668","case_name":"Dumke v. City of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2013,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-12-1668","circuit_docket":"11-CH-13550","published":1,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(f)"],"public_body":"City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Michael Dumke","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the City of Chicago waived the FOIA exemption under section 7(1)(f) for a consultant's report when the mayor publicly cited and identified the report in a press conference and press release. Consequently, the court reversed the summary judgment for the city and granted summary judgment for the plaintiff, ruling that the public citation precluded the need for an in camera review.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1121668.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:24.043786","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2013-06-28"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (1st) 121841","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (1st) 121841","case_name":"Fagel v. Department of Transportation","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2013,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-12-1841","circuit_docket":"11-CH-38809","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Cunningham","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Transportation","requesting_party":"Barnet Fagel","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the Department of Transportation was required to provide the requested information in an unlocked electronic spreadsheet format under FOIA. The court further affirmed the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff, noting that concerns regarding potential data manipulation do not constitute a valid FOIA exemption.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1121841.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:24.340090","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2013-05-28"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (1st) 122444","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (1st) 122444","case_name":"Garlick v. Office of the Public Access Counselor","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2013,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-12-2444","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Hyman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Oak Park-River Forest High School District No. 200","requesting_party":"Warren R. Garlick","disposition":"affirmed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that a nonbinding opinion from the Public Access Counselor (PAC) is not subject to the Administrative Review Law. Consequently, a requester may sue a public body directly under section 11 of the FOIA rather than seeking administrative review of a nonbinding PAC opinion.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1122444.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:24.367197","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2013-12-31"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (1st) 122446","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (1st) 122446","case_name":"Howe v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2013,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-12-2446","circuit_docket":"11-CH-16641","published":1,"authoring_justice":"null","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago","requesting_party":"Patrick J. Howe","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the Retirement Board failed to take valid final action in compliance with the Open Meetings Act regarding the denial of the plaintiff's disability benefits. Consequently, the court reversed the circuit court's judgment, vacated the Board's decision, and remanded the cause for the Board to render a final administrative decision in accordance with the Act.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/cleaned_text_files/1122446.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:24.861501","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"2013-09-09"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (1st) 130757","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (1st) 130757","case_name":"Lawrence v. Williams","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2013,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-13-0757","circuit_docket":"13-COEL-39","published":1,"authoring_justice":"null","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Educational Officers Electoral Board of Thornton Township High School District 205","requesting_party":"Bernadette Lawrence","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the electoral board violated the Open Meetings Act by issuing disqualification decisions at meetings that lacked a quorum. Consequently, because no valid final decision was rendered, neither the trial court nor the appellate court possessed jurisdiction to review the matter.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/cleaned_text_files/1130757.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:25.571857","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"2013-04-09"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (2d) 110698","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (2d) 110698","case_name":"Lucas v. Prisoner Review Board","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2013,"county":"Lee","appellate_docket":"2-11-0698","circuit_docket":"10-MR-66","published":1,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Prisoner Review Board and Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Shaun B. Lucas","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint filed by a prisoner seeking records from the Prisoner Review Board and the Department of Corrections. The court held that the requested records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2110698.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:25.572005","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2013-10-24"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (2d) 120635","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (2d) 120635","case_name":"Nelson v. Kendall County","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2013,"county":"Kendall","appellate_docket":"2-12-0635","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Karmeier","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Kendall County State's Attorney's Office","requesting_party":"Larry Nelson et al.","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Illinois Supreme Court held that the office of a State's Attorney is part of the executive branch and constitutes a public body subject to the disclosure requirements of the Freedom of Information Act. The court rejected the argument that the office is exempt from FOIA as part of the judiciary.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/116303.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:26.283198","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (3d) 120231","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (3d) 120231","case_name":"Buckner v. University Park Police Pension Fund","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2013,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-12-0231","circuit_docket":"10-MR-1183","published":1,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"University Park Police Pension Fund","requesting_party":null,"disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a police officer's application for an on-duty disability pension. The Open Meetings Act was mentioned only in the context of the plaintiff's failure to file a timely complaint regarding the composition of the pension board.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/cleaned_text_files/3120231.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:26.823350","site_category":"Other","date_decided":"2013-02-01"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (4th) 120402","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (4th) 120402","case_name":"Brown v. Grosskopf","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2013,"county":"Livingston","appellate_docket":"4-12-0402","circuit_docket":"11-MR-41","published":1,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"State's Attorney of Livingston County","requesting_party":"Matthew E. Grosskopf","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the State's Attorney's complaint seeking a declaratory judgment on whether his office constitutes a 'public body' under FOIA. The court held that no actual controversy existed because the complaint was based on a nonbinding opinion letter from the Attorney General, rendering the issue unripe for judicial determination.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4120402.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:27.387095","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"2013-02-13"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (4th) 120662","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (4th) 120662","case_name":"City of Champaign v. Madigan","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2013,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-12-0662, 4-12-0751","circuit_docket":"11-MR-680","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Champaign","requesting_party":"Patrick Wade and The News-Gazette, Inc.","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that electronic communications sent by city council members regarding public business during meetings are subject to FOIA disclosure. However, the court reversed the award of attorney fees, ruling that fees are not recoverable when a requester pursues a binding opinion from the Attorney General under section 9.5 rather than filing a court action under section 11.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4120662.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:28.264013","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2013-07-16"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (4th) 120742","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (4th) 120742","case_name":"Shehadeh v. Madigan","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2013,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-12-0742","circuit_docket":"12-MR-248","published":1,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["3(g)"],"public_body":"Illinois Attorney General","requesting_party":"Jamal Shehadeh","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed summary judgment for the Attorney General, holding that a FOIA request requiring the review of 9,200 records was unduly burdensome under section 3(g). The court found that the Attorney General sufficiently explained the burden and that the requester's refusal to narrow the request did not preclude the agency from asserting the exemption.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4120742.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:28.264070","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2013-10-04"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (4th) 120825","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (4th) 120825","case_name":"Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. Environmental Protection Agency","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2013,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-12-0825","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["FOIA","OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Environmental Protection Agency and Pollution Control Board","requesting_party":"Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 et al.","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the Environmental Protection Agency violated FOIA by failing to comply with document requests and the Pollution Control Board violated the Open Meetings Act by conducting improper closed sessions and denying the public an opportunity to address the board. The appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4120825.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:28.744019","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"2013-11-14"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (4th) 120881","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (4th) 120881","case_name":"The State Journal-Register and Bruce Rushton v. The University of Illinois Springfield and Harry Berman","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2013,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-12-0881","circuit_docket":"11-MR-131","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"University of Illinois Springfield","requesting_party":"The State Journal-Register and Bruce Rushton","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the trial court erred in denying the plaintiffs' FOIA request for specific redacted documents, including an email string, internal communications, and witness statements, as they did not fall under the Educational Privacy Act. The remainder of the trial court's order, including the exemption of the student victim's name, was affirmed.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4120881.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:29.116543","site_category":"Personnel & Student Records","date_decided":"2013-08-08"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (4th) 121050-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (4th) 121050-U","case_name":"Akemann v. Quinn","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2013,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-12-1050","circuit_docket":"12-MR-846","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission","requesting_party":null,"disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction regarding the rescission of an arbitrator's reappointment. The Open Meetings Act was cited only in passing to distinguish the plaintiff's case from a prior decision involving potential serious harm.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/4121050_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:29.779759","site_category":"Other","date_decided":"2013-05-31"},{"dedup_key":"2013 IL App (4th) 130422","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2013 IL App (4th) 130422","case_name":"Uphoff v. Grosskopf","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2013,"county":"Livingston","appellate_docket":"4-13-0422","circuit_docket":"11-MR-41","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"State's Attorney of Livingston County","requesting_party":"Matthew E. Grosskopf","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that the State's Attorney's office is not a 'public body' for the purposes of the Freedom of Information Act and is therefore exempt from its requirements.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4130422.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:30.206528","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"2013-12-12"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (1st) 121846","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (1st) 121846","case_name":"Kalven v. City of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2014,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-12-1846","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Hyman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"City of Chicago and Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Jamie Kalven","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court held that police 'repeater lists' and complaint register files regarding officer misconduct are subject to disclosure under FOIA. The court affirmed summary judgment for the plaintiff regarding the repeater lists and reversed the judgment for the defendant regarding the complaint files, remanding for consideration of redactions under the deliberative process exemption.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1121846.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:30.472449","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2014-03-10"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (1st) 123769","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (1st) 123769","case_name":"Taiym v. Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2014,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-12-3769","circuit_docket":"11-CH-44017","published":1,"authoring_justice":"null","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Retirement Board of the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund of City of Chicago","requesting_party":"null","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to adopt a pension decision via an open vote on a written document. While the court noted that best practices require voting on a specific written decision, it affirmed the Board's action because the record showed a valid affirmative majority vote on the motion to deny service credit.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/1123769.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:31.531708","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"2014-04-28"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (1st) 130161","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (1st) 130161","case_name":"Uptown People's Law Center v. Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2014,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-13-0161","circuit_docket":"12-CH-00164","published":1,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Uptown People's Law Center","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that while court-ordered relief is not a prerequisite for attorney fees under FOIA, a not-for-profit organization is not entitled to fees when it did not actually incur costs because its legal work was performed by salaried staff. The court affirmed the denial of fees, reasoning that awarding them would reward the organization rather than compensate it for incurred expenses.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1130161.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:31.532014","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2014-02-27"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (2d) 130708","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (2d) 130708","case_name":"Sage Information Services v. Suhr","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2014,"county":"Winnebago","appellate_docket":"2-13-0708","circuit_docket":"12-MR-987","published":1,"authoring_justice":"null","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Winnebago County Supervisor of Assessments","requesting_party":"Sage Information Services and Roger W. Hurlbert","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that when a FOIA requester seeks electronic records, a public body is limited by section 6 of the FOIA to charging only the actual cost of the electronic media used. The court ruled that section 9-20 of the Property Tax Code does not authorize the assessment of additional per-parcel fees for electronic records that exceed the cost of the medium.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2130708.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:33.488342","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2014-04-14"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (2d) 140071","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (2d) 140071","case_name":"Better Government Association v. Zaruba","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2014,"county":"Sheriff of Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-14-0071","circuit_docket":"13-MR-958","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Hutchinson","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Sheriff of Du Page County","requesting_party":"Better Government Association","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA request seeking records of LEADS inquiries made by the sheriff's son. The court held that the plaintiff was not the proper entity to investigate alleged misuse of the LEADS system, as such oversight is reserved for the Illinois Department of State Police due to the sensitive nature of the information.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2140071.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:34.032117","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2014-11-06"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (2d) 140159-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (2d) 140159-U","case_name":"John Peter Gonigam and First Electric Newspaper, LLC v. Office of the Sheriff of McHenry County","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2014,"county":"McHenry","appellate_docket":"2-14-0159","circuit_docket":"13-MR-309","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Zenoff","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(n)"],"public_body":"Office of the Sheriff of McHenry County","requesting_party":"John Peter Gonigam and First Electric Newspaper, LLC","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the trial court's order requiring the Sheriff's Office to release documents, holding that the records were not exempt under section 7(1)(n) of the FOIA. The court determined the documents were not related to an adjudication of a disciplinary case, as they were generated independently of and prior to the investigation and adjudication process.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2140159_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:34.150597","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2014-05-19"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (4th) 130427","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (4th) 130427","case_name":"Chicago Tribune Co. v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2014,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-13-0427","circuit_docket":"11-MR-167","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Financial and Professional Regulation","requesting_party":"Chicago Tribune Company","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation was not required to comply with a FOIA request that necessitated the creation of a new record not currently maintained by the agency. Because the requested information regarding the number of initial sexual misconduct claims against specific physicians did not exist as a compiled record, the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for the plaintiff.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4130427.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:35.610483","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2014-03-06"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (4th) 130866-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (4th) 130866-U","case_name":"Gary Frederico Ellison v. Lisa Madigan","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2014,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-13-0866","circuit_docket":"13-CH-354","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Harris","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Attorney General for the State of Illinois","requesting_party":"Gary Frederico Ellison","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint because the Attorney General was not the public body to whom the FOIA requests were directed and did not possess the requested records. The court held that the plaintiff failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against the Attorney General.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4130866_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:35.610645","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"2014-09-05"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (4th) 130993-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (4th) 130993-U","case_name":"Rushton v. City of Springfield","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2014,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-13-0993","circuit_docket":"12MR29","published":0,"authoring_justice":null,"statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Springfield; Joint Labor Management Health Committee","requesting_party":"Bruce Rushton","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court held that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to order the defendants to record committee meetings because the underlying action had been dismissed in May 2012. Consequently, the court vacated the trial court's August 2013 order and remanded the case with directions to dismiss the plaintiff's petition.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/4130993_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:35.626827","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"2014-07-29"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (4th) 140017-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (4th) 140017-U","case_name":"Nord v. Village of Saybrook","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2014,"county":"McLean","appellate_docket":"4-14-0017","circuit_docket":"10-CH-175","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Holder White","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Village of Saybrook","requesting_party":"Renee Nord","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, holding that the alleged Open Meetings Act violation was not related to the relief sought. The court further determined that a neighbor cannot challenge the validity of a special-use permit in a private-enforcement action.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/4140017_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:36.299692","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"2014-11-04"},{"dedup_key":"2014 IL App (5th) 130507-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2014 IL App (5th) 130507-U","case_name":"P&S Grain, LLC v. Williamson County","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2014,"county":"Williamson","appellate_docket":"5-13-0507","circuit_docket":"08-CH-100","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Welch","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Williamson County","requesting_party":"P&S Grain, LLC and V.W. Bowman Oil Company","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The circuit court did not err in finding that the county had not violated the Open Meetings Act, nor had it exceeded its authority in passing a resolution authorizing the imposition of a school facility occupation tax. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, upholding the validity of the county ordinances.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/cleaned_text_files/5130507_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:36.960979","site_category":"Meeting Notices & Agendas","date_decided":"2014-09-19"},{"dedup_key":"2015 IL App (1st) 131618-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2015 IL App (1st) 131618-U","case_name":"Vernon Tolbert v. Office of Emergency Management Communications, City of Chicago, Jose A. Santiago and Dionne A. Tate","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2015,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-13-1618","circuit_docket":"12 CH 43816","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Fitzgerald Smith","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Office of Emergency Management Communications, City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Vernon Tolbert","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, finding that the defendants conducted an adequate search and properly informed the plaintiff that the requested information no longer exists. The dissent argued that the search was insufficient because the defendants failed to verify whether records existed on specific hard drives or microfilm.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1131618_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:38.059611","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2015-09-23"},{"dedup_key":"2015 IL App (3d) 130852-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2015 IL App (3d) 130852-U","case_name":"Ward v. Weisbaum","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2015,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-13-0852","circuit_docket":"13-MR-277","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Holdridge","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)"],"public_body":"Office of the Secretary of State","requesting_party":"Dennis Ward","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The circuit court properly dismissed the plaintiff's FOIA lawsuit for injunctive relief because the requested home addresses of two individuals constituted private information exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(b) of the FOIA. The court held that the Secretary of State was not required to disclose the private home addresses when employer addresses had already been provided.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/3130852_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:40.411747","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2015-01-20"},{"dedup_key":"2015 IL App (3d) 140014-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2015 IL App (3d) 140014-U","case_name":"Calvin Merritte v. Thomas Templeton and Troy Holland","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2015,"county":"La Salle","appellate_docket":"3-14-0014","circuit_docket":"12-MR-121","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Lytton","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)"],"public_body":"La Salle County Sheriff's Office","requesting_party":"Calvin Merritte","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that an inmate was not entitled to a correction officer's medical or disciplinary records under FOIA, but was entitled to a redacted photograph of the officer's injury. The court determined that the redacted photograph did not constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under section 7(1)(b).","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3140014_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:40.411807","site_category":"Personnel & Student Records","date_decided":"2015-07-23"},{"dedup_key":"2015 IL App (3d) 140246","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2015 IL App (3d) 140246","case_name":"Walsh v. Will County Adult Detention Facility","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2015,"county":"Walsh v. Will","appellate_docket":"3-14-0246","circuit_docket":"13-CH-3206","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Holdridge","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Will County Adult Detention Facility","requesting_party":"Derek J. Walsh","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The plaintiff filed a complaint seeking relief under FOIA, but the appellate court's ruling focused exclusively on the trial court's failure to provide specific reasoning for denying the plaintiff's application to sue as an indigent person under the Code of Civil Procedure.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3140246.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:03:40.411839","site_category":"Requester Status","date_decided":"2015-04-22"},{"dedup_key":"2015 IL App (4th) 140941","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL 120343","case_name":"Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186 v. Attorney General","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"4th","year":2015,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"120343","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Garman","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Education of Springfield School District No. 186","requesting_party":null,"disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that a public body's oral recital prior to a closed session vote sufficiently complied with the Open Meetings Act when it identified the general nature of the matter and the specific parties involved. The Court ruled that the Board was not required to read the entire agreement or enumerate specific key points to satisfy the public recitation requirement of section 2(e).","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/120343.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:50.300012","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"2017-01-20"},{"dedup_key":"2015 IL App (4th) 140974-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2015 IL App (4th) 140974-U","case_name":"Kirk Allen v. Department of Healthcare and Family Services, and Julie Hamos","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2015,"county":"Edgar","appellate_docket":"4-14-0974","circuit_docket":"13-MR-74","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Harris","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Healthcare and Family Services","requesting_party":"Kirk Allen","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion to reconsider his complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, finding no abuse of discretion regarding newly discovered evidence. The court further held that the defendant complied with the plaintiff's FOIA request, noting that a separate, broader FOIA request by a state representative did not render the defendant's response to the plaintiff's request deficient.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4140974_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:50.344965","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2015-10-02"},{"dedup_key":"2015 IL App (4th) 150037","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2015 IL App (4th) 150037","case_name":"Howard v. Weitekamp","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2015,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-15-0037","circuit_docket":"14-MR-385","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Knecht","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Mark Howard","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that specific provisions of the Unified Code of Corrections and the Illinois Administrative Code regarding inmate access to master record files control over the general access provisions of FOIA. Consequently, the Department's denial of the inmate's FOIA request for grievance records was proper.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4150037.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:50.415049","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2015-12-10"},{"dedup_key":"2015 IL App (5th) 130232-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2015 IL App (5th) 130232-U","case_name":"Shehadeh v. Office of Executive Inspector General for the Agencies of the Illinois Governor","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2015,"county":"Christian","appellate_docket":"5-13-0232","circuit_docket":"12-MR-119","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Goldenhersh","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Office of Executive Inspector General for the Agencies of the Illinois Governor","requesting_party":"Jamal Shehadeh","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant because the plaintiff received the requested public record during the pendency of the FOIA action, rendering the request moot. The court modified the judgment to explicitly dismiss the claim as moot rather than granting summary judgment on the merits.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/5130232_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:50.415098","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2015-04-08"},{"dedup_key":"2015 IL App (5th) 140357-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2015 IL App (5th) 140357-U","case_name":"James Perdue v. Village of Tower Hill","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2015,"county":"Shelby","appellate_docket":"5-14-0357","circuit_docket":"10-MR-12","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Chapman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Village of Tower Hill","requesting_party":"James Perdue","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the trial court's decision to award attorney fees to the requester after the Village of Tower Hill voluntarily produced records following a FOIA request. The court held that the award was authorized by the statute and that the amount granted was reasonable based on the facts of the case.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/5140357_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:50.415113","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2015-12-29"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (1st) 143755-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (1st) 143755-U","case_name":"For the Good of Illinois, Inc. v. Office of Comptroller","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2016,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-14-3755","circuit_docket":"2013 CH 257","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Pucinski","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Office of the Comptroller","requesting_party":"For the Good of Illinois, Inc.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the Comptroller properly established that the request was unduly burdensome. The court further affirmed the denial of attorney fees, finding that the plaintiff was not a prevailing party because the court ruled against it on the merits.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1143755_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:52.279270","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2016-08-24"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (1st) 143884","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL 127229","case_name":"Green v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"1st","year":2016,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":null,"circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Burke","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Charles Green","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that the propriety of a public body's denial of a FOIA request must be measured at the time the agency asserts the exemption and denies the request, rather than accounting for changed circumstances during litigation. This prevents the burden of continuous monitoring and ensures that attorney fee assessments are based on the legality of the denial at the time it was made.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Green v. Chicago Police Department, 2022 IL 127229.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:52.279698","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2022-09-22"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (1st) 151356","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL 121124","case_name":"Better Government Ass’n v. Illinois High School Ass’n","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"1st","year":2016,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"15-1356","circuit_docket":"14-CH-12377","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Theis","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois High School Association (IHSA)","requesting_party":"Better Government Association","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that the Illinois High School Association (IHSA) is not a 'public body' under the Illinois FOIA because it is a private, voluntary organization not created by government mandate. Consequently, records held by the IHSA are not public records subject to disclosure under the Act.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/121124.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:54.169051","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"2017-05-18"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (1st) 152958","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (1st) 152958","case_name":"Watkins v. Johnson","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2016,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-15-2958","circuit_docket":"13 CH 2061","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Rochford","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Kilroy Watkins","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff's FOIA claims, finding that requested documents were not in the defendants' possession. Additionally, the court held that the record on appeal was inadequate to determine if redactions were exempt from disclosure or if any statutory exemptions had been waived.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1152958_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:54.169162","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2016-09-30"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (1st) 153366","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (1st) 153366","case_name":"Korner v. Madigan","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2016,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-15-3366","circuit_docket":"14-CH-3223","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Neville","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation","requesting_party":"Lindy Korner","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint because the plaintiff named only individual state officials as defendants rather than the public body itself. The court held that the Illinois FOIA, like its federal counterpart, authorizes suits against public bodies, not individuals.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1153366.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:54.169186","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"2016-12-20"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (1st) 160528-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (1st) 160528-U","case_name":"Kowalski v. Cook County Officers Electoral Board","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2016,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-16-0528","circuit_docket":"16 COEL 1","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Fitzgerald Smith","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Cook County Officers Electoral Board","requesting_party":"Jan Kowalski","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Electoral Board, finding no genuine issue of material fact regarding an alleged Open Meetings Act violation. The court held that the Board's procedures were public and official, and the petitioner failed to provide evidence of any secret voting or unauthorized conduct.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/cleaned_text_files/1160528_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:54.169235","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"2016-03-09"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (2d) 150378-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (2d) 150378-U","case_name":"Puryear v. Village of Prairie Grove","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2016,"county":"McHenry","appellate_docket":"2-15-0378","circuit_docket":"13-LA-15","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Hudson","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Village of Prairie Grove","requesting_party":"Eric D. Puryear","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the trial court's exclusion of evidence regarding unrelated traffic stops and lay opinion testimony concerning computer error messages in a FOIA bad-faith claim. The court held that the excluded evidence was irrelevant to the plaintiff's claim that the defendant willfully failed to comply with FOIA.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2150378_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:54.521669","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2016-05-16"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (2d) 150381-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (2d) 150381-U","case_name":"Warren R. Garlick v. Naperville Township","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2016,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-15-0381","circuit_docket":"14-CH-2263","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Jorgensen","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Naperville Township","requesting_party":"Warren R. Garlick","disposition":"reversed_and_remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a violation of section 8.5 of the Freedom of Information Act. The court held that the question of whether a public record is 'reasonably accessible' is a factual issue that should be addressed via summary judgment or at trial rather than a motion to dismiss.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2150381_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:54.521743","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2016-02-22"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (2d) 150836","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (2d) 150836","case_name":"Hites v. Waubonsee Community College","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2016,"county":"Kane","appellate_docket":"2-15-0836","circuit_docket":"14-CH-398","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Spence","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Waubonsee Community College","requesting_party":"Daniel Hites","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that data stored in a public body's existing databases constitutes a public record under FOIA, and retrieving such data does not constitute the creation of a new record. However, requests that require the public body to perform new calculations or compile data not currently in a record are not subject to disclosure under FOIA.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2150836.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:54.577435","site_category":"Public Records Definition","date_decided":"2016-06-06"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (3d) 140838","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (3d) 140838","case_name":"Peoria Journal Star v. City of Peoria","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2016,"county":"Peoria","appellate_docket":"3-14-0838","circuit_docket":"14-MR-288","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lytton","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(n)"],"public_body":"City of Peoria","requesting_party":"Peoria Journal Star and Matt Buedel","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a police department report regarding an employee grievance was not exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7(1)(n). The court determined that because the report was created prior to and independent of any formal disciplinary adjudication, it did not qualify as a record of a disciplinary proceeding.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/3140838.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:56.523154","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2016-04-18"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (3d) 150801-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (3d) 150801-U","case_name":"Bocock v. Meyers","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2016,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-15-0801","circuit_docket":"15-CH-1397","published":0,"authoring_justice":"O'Brien","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Will County State's Attorney's Office","requesting_party":"Charles Bocock","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of a pro se FOIA complaint, holding that while the plaintiff sufficiently alleged a claim against the assistant state's attorney in his official capacity, the FOIA request failed to reasonably identify the specific public records sought. The court found the request for jury instructions regarding seven different criminal statutes was insufficiently specific.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3150801_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:57.131532","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2016-12-06"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (4th) 150028-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (4th) 150028-U","case_name":"John Kraft v. Arcola Township","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2016,"county":"Douglas","appellate_docket":"4-15-0028","circuit_docket":"13-MR-53","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Turner","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Arcola Township","requesting_party":"John Kraft","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Arcola Township, finding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of a FOIA violation. The court further held that the trial court did not err in refusing to admit the plaintiff's exhibits or in denying his request for an index of records.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4150028_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:57.131577","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2016-03-17"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (4th) 150189-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (4th) 150189-U","case_name":"Ralph Mlaska v. The Illinois Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2016,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-15-0189","circuit_docket":"14-MR-689","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Pope","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)","7(1)(e-7)","7(1)(f)"],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Ralph Mlaska","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the documents requested by the plaintiff from the Illinois Department of Corrections were exempt from disclosure under sections 7(1)(a), (1)(e-7), and (1)(f) of the Freedom of Information Act. The court upheld the Department's refusal to provide the records based on these statutory exemptions.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4150189_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:57.131594","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2016-03-17"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (4th) 150190-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (4th) 150190-U","case_name":"Vernon Tolbert v. The Illinois State Police, Bruce Bialorucki, and Steven Lyddon","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2016,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-15-0190","circuit_docket":"14-MR-691","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Pope","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois State Police","requesting_party":"Vernon Tolbert","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint. The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to survive a section 2-615 motion to dismiss, specifically failing to show that the requested documents were in the agency's possession or that the agency was required to maintain them.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4150190_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:57.131605","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2016-03-29"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (4th) 150233-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (4th) 150233-U","case_name":"Brian Dugan v. Illinois Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2016,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-15-0233","circuit_docket":"13-MR-858","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Turner","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(e)"],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Brian Dugan","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Corrections regarding a FOIA request. The court held that the Department properly asserted a FOIA exemption and that the plaintiff's motions for sanctions were meritless.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4150233_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:57.479939","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2016-01-21"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (4th) 150478-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (4th) 150478-U","case_name":"Lloyd Saterfield v. The Illinois Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2016,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-15-0478","circuit_docket":"13-CH-978","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Pope","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Lloyd Saterfield","disposition":"remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint but remanded the case with directions for the Department of Corrections to unredact and disclose a specific portion of the requested internal document. The court also held that the Department substantially complied with the notification requirements of section 9(a) of the Act.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4150478_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:57.562970","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2016-04-05"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (4th) 150569-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (4th) 150569-U","case_name":"Naomi Lopez Bauman and The Illinois Policy Institute v. The Department of Central Management Services","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2016,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-15-0569","circuit_docket":"14-MR-479","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Harris","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Central Management Services","requesting_party":"Naomi Lopez Bauman and The Illinois Policy Institute","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court held that the trial court erred in finding the plaintiffs ineligible for attorney fees under FOIA. The court reversed the denial of fees and remanded the case for a determination of the reasonableness of the requested fees.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4150569_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:57.787621","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2016-08-26"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (4th) 150963","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (4th) 150963","case_name":"Allen v. Clark County Park District Board of Commissioners","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2016,"county":"Allen v. Clark","appellate_docket":"4-15-0963","circuit_docket":"15-MR-4","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Clark County Park District Board of Commissioners","requesting_party":"Kirk Allen and John Kraft","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by failing to provide a sufficient public recital of the nature of the matters being considered before voting on lease rates and covenants. The court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiffs' complaint, finding the Board's vague agenda items and lack of explanation failed to inform the public.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/my_pdf_files/4150963.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:58.005315","site_category":"Meeting Notices & Agendas","date_decided":"2016-11-16"},{"dedup_key":"2016 IL App (4th) 151024","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2016 IL App (4th) 151024","case_name":"Cebertowicz v. Illinois Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2016,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-15-1024","circuit_docket":"14-MR-1438","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Pope","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(e-5)"],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Kenneth Cebertowicz","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Illinois Department of Corrections did not violate FOIA by denying an inmate's request for copies of documents that were already available for inspection in the facility's library. Under section 7(1)(e-5), materials accessible to an inmate within their correctional facility are exempt from the requirement to provide copies.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4151024.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:58.074430","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2016-09-30"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (1st) 150032-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (1st) 150032-U","case_name":"Dole v. City of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2017,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-15-0032","circuit_docket":"13 CH 12227","published":0,"authoring_justice":"McBride","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Joseph Dole","disposition":"remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaints and the denial of civil penalties and index requests. The case was remanded for the trial court to consider the plaintiff's request for videotapes and to determine the appropriate award of costs for the plaintiff as a prevailing party.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1150032_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:59.183642","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2017-02-09"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (1st) 150870","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (1st) 150870","case_name":"City of Chicago v. Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2017,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-15-0870","circuit_docket":"13-L-10572","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Reyes","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)","7(1)(g)"],"public_body":"City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Janssen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed a reverse-FOIA action where a pharmaceutical company sought to prevent the City of Chicago from disclosing documents provided under a protective order. The court affirmed the circuit court's order, finding that the parties maintained a legally cognizable interest in the declaratory relief sought regarding the applicability of FOIA exemptions 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(g).","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1150870.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:09:59.565041","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2017-03-31"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (1st) 161376","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL 122949","case_name":"In re Appointment of Special Prosecutor","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"1st","year":2017,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-16-1376","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Neville","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Better Government Association","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that judicial protective orders take precedence over FOIA disclosure requirements. Consequently, the City did not improperly withhold documents under section 11(d) of FOIA because it was required to comply with existing court orders.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/122949.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:00.435703","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2019-01-25"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (1st) 161379-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (1st) 161379-U","case_name":"Clarence Love v. Cook County State's Attorney's Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2017,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-16-1379","circuit_docket":"15 CH 7504","published":0,"authoring_justice":"McBride","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Cook County State's Attorney's Office","requesting_party":"Clarence Love","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The trial court properly granted summary judgment because the plaintiff's FOIA claim became moot after the defendant provided the requested information. The court also correctly denied the plaintiff's request for an in camera review, as the defendant did not claim any FOIA exemptions to justify withholding documents.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1161379_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:01.001110","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2017-06-29"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (1st) 161780","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL 122349","case_name":"Perry v. Department of Financial & Professional Regulation","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"1st","year":2017,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"161780","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Thomas","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Financial and Professional Regulation","requesting_party":"Christopher J. Perry and Institute for Justice","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that statutory amendments regarding the disclosure of professional regulation complaints were substantive rather than procedural and therefore applied prospectively. Consequently, the Court reversed the appellate court's judgment and remanded for further proceedings regarding the plaintiffs' FOIA requests and potential entitlement to attorney fees and civil penalties under the Act.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/122349.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:01.663316","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2018-05-24"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (1st) 161957","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (1st) 161957","case_name":"Better Government Association v. Village of Rosemont","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2017,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-16-1957","circuit_docket":"15-CH-1061","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Neville","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)","7(1)(g)"],"public_body":"Village of Rosemont","requesting_party":"Better Government Association","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Village of Rosemont could not redact financial terms from public contracts under FOIA, as the trade secrets exemption (section 7(1)(g)) does not apply to standard rental rates and incentives provided by a public body. Furthermore, the court ruled that home rule units lack the authority to create additional exemptions to FOIA disclosure requirements.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1161957.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:01.663328","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2017-06-27"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (1st) 162017-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (1st) 162017-U","case_name":"People v. Hemphill","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2017,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-16-2017","circuit_docket":"99 CR 12045","published":0,"authoring_justice":"McBride","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Carl Hemphill","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the defendant's petition for mandamus regarding a FOIA request. The court held that the defendant could not seek administrative review of a non-binding Public Access Counselor opinion and must instead pursue injunctive or declaratory relief under section 11 of FOIA.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1162017_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:01.851271","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2017-09-07"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (1st) 162141","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (1st) 162141","case_name":"Institute for Justice v. Department of Financial and Professional Regulation","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2017,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-16-2141","circuit_docket":"14-CH-19381","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Rochford","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Financial and Professional Regulation","requesting_party":"Institute for Justice","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff regarding a FOIA request. The court held that the law in effect at the time of the ruling exempted the disclosure of the requested information, precluding retroactive application of the law to the plaintiff's request.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1162141_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:02.026646","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2017-04-14"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (1st) 162967-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (1st) 162967-U","case_name":"Rogers v. Ammarell, et al.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2017,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-16-2967","circuit_docket":"14 CH 18969","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Howse","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Housing Authority","requesting_party":"Kinga Rogers","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding that her FOIA claim was rendered moot by her own waiver regarding the underlying board resolutions. The court held that because the plaintiff conceded her FOIA claim would be moot if the defendant complied with specific board resolutions, and because the court could affirm on any grounds in the record, the dismissal was proper.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1162967_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:02.855023","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2017-06-29"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (2d) 160274","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (2d) 160274","case_name":"The Chicago Tribune v. The College of Du Page and The College of Du Page Foundation","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2017,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-16-0274","circuit_docket":"15-MR-580","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Spence","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"College of Du Page and College of Du Page Foundation","requesting_party":"The Chicago Tribune","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a federal grand jury subpoena served on the College of Du Page Foundation was subject to disclosure under FOIA, rejecting the argument that the subpoena was exempt as information prohibited from disclosure by federal law. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment requiring the production of the document.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2160274.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:03.499790","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2017-05-09"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (2d) 160994-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (2d) 160994-U","case_name":"Warren R. Garlick v. Bloomingdale Township and Milton Township","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2017,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-16-0994","circuit_docket":"16-MR-501","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Jorgensen","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Bloomingdale Township and Milton Township","requesting_party":"Warren R. Garlick","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's FOIA complaint as moot because the defendants provided the requested data in the format the plaintiff requested. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal on mootness grounds and declined to address the applicability of specific FOIA exemptions.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2160994_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:04.151344","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2017-06-13"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (2d) 170025","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (2d) 170025","case_name":"Garlick v. Naperville Township","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2017,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-17-0025","circuit_docket":"14-CH-2263","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Jorgensen","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["8.5"],"public_body":"Naperville Township","requesting_party":"Warren R. Garlick","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint where the plaintiff sought a real-property database in a specific native file format. The court held that the township satisfied its obligations by providing access to the data via a website and offering a sortable spreadsheet, noting that FOIA is not the proper forum to litigate third-party intellectual property or copyright claims.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2170025.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:04.411361","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2017-09-15"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (3d) 150860","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (3d) 150860","case_name":"Bocock v. McGuire","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2017,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-15-0860","circuit_docket":"15-CH-1907","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Carter","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Circuit Court Clerk of the Twelfth Judicial Circuit","requesting_party":"Charles Bocock","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging the circuit court clerk improperly docketed his FOIA-related cases, causing him harm. The court held that the plaintiff failed to allege specific harm or a deprivation of meaningful access to the courts, and thus affirmed the dismissal of his complaint.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/3150860.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:04.940330","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2017-09-28"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (3d) 160073-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (3d) 160073-U","case_name":"Calvin Merritte v. Thomas Templeton and Troy Holland","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2017,"county":"La Salle","appellate_docket":"3-16-0073 and 3-16-0125","circuit_docket":"12-MR-121","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Schmidt","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"La Salle County Sheriff and La Salle County State's Attorney","requesting_party":"Calvin Merritte","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The circuit court did not err in refusing to consider claims that were barred by res judicata and beyond the scope of remand. The court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to civil penalties, attorney fees, or costs, and properly denied motions for substitution of judge and change of venue.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3160073_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:05.639599","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2017-07-07"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (3d) 160324","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (3d) 160324","case_name":"McGee v. Kelley","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2017,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-16-0324","circuit_docket":"15-CH-725","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Holdridge","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Will County Sheriff","requesting_party":"Derrick McGee","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for police records, holding that the records were exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(c) as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court further noted that the appellant failed to provide an adequate record to support his claim that the documents had previously been made public.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/3160324.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:05.982300","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2017-12-14"},{"dedup_key":"2017 IL App (5th) 160023-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2017 IL App (5th) 160023-U","case_name":"Todd Fort v. Michael J. Henshaw","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2017,"county":"Saline","appellate_docket":"5-16-0023","circuit_docket":"13-L-30","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Welch","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Saline County State's Attorney","requesting_party":"Todd Fort","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a tort complaint against a State's Attorney on sovereign immunity grounds. While the defendant's prior handling of a FOIA request was mentioned as part of the factual background, the case did not substantively adjudicate FOIA or OMA compliance.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/5160023_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:06.384122","site_category":"Other","date_decided":"2017-01-04"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (1st) 163153","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (1st) 163153","case_name":"Martinez v. Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2018,"county":"Martinez v. Cook","appellate_docket":"1-16-3153","circuit_docket":"15-CH-5943","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Simon","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office","requesting_party":"Freddy Martinez","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed summary judgment for the State's Attorney's Office, holding that the plaintiff's FOIA requests were improper because they sought the creation of new records rather than the disclosure of existing public records. The court determined that requesting a search of a database to generate specific information constitutes a request for new data rather than a request for an existing public record.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1163153.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:07.809273","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2018-03-12"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (1st) 170455","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (1st) 170455","case_name":"Chicago Tribune Co. v. Cook County Assessor’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2018,"county":"Tribune Co. v. Cook","appellate_docket":"1-17-0455","circuit_docket":"16-CH-04992","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Griffin","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(f)"],"public_body":"Cook County Assessor’s Office","requesting_party":"Chicago Tribune Company","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the trial court's ruling that the Cook County Assessor’s Office failed to justify withholding property valuation records under the FOIA deliberative process exemption. The appellate court also vacated the trial court's order sealing the case records, finding no compelling reason to maintain secrecy.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1170455.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:08.368571","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2018-06-29"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (1st) 171846","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (1st) 171846","case_name":"Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Inc. v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2018,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-17-1846","circuit_docket":"2016-CH-16301","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Mikva","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Board of Education of the City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, Inc.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint, holding that the plaintiff's request was unduly burdensome under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA. The court determined that the burden of compliance outweighed the public interest because the request amounted to an unfocused 'fishing expedition' rather than a targeted inquiry.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1171846.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:08.858910","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2018-12-03"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (1st) 172909-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (1st) 172909-U","case_name":"Blackman v. City of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2018,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-17-2909","circuit_docket":"16 CH 9590","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Howse","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Sonya Blackman and Oily Thomas","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the City of Chicago, finding that the City conducted a reasonable search for requested police records in good faith. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the City's search was inadequate or that it failed to provide a sufficient index of withheld documents under FOIA.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1172909_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:09.984634","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2018-12-26"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (1st) 182063-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (1st) 182063-U","case_name":"In re the Marriage of Del Galdo","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2018,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-18-2063","circuit_docket":"16 D 9266","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Rochford","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":null,"requesting_party":"David P. Kirsh","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, finding that the denial of a motion for substitution of judge is not an appealable order under Rule 307(a)(1). While the underlying litigation involved FOIA requests, the FOIA statute was only mentioned in the context of discovery orders and was not the subject of the appellate ruling.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1182063_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:09.984801","site_category":"Other","date_decided":"2018-12-14"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (2d) 170617","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (2d) 170617","case_name":"Hites v. Waubonsee Community College","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2018,"county":"Kane","appellate_docket":"2-17-0617","circuit_docket":"14-CH-398","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Spence","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["3(g)"],"public_body":"Waubonsee Community College","requesting_party":"Daniel Hites","disposition":"reversed_and_remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the circuit court erred in granting the defendant's motion to dismiss based on the FOIA undue-burden exemption. The appellate court found that the defendant failed to meet the evidentiary requirements to prove that the burden of compliance outweighed the public interest in the requested electronic data.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2170617.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:10.745503","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2018-07-20"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (2d) 171013","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (2d) 171013","case_name":"Garlick v. Bloomingdale Township","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2018,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-17-1013","circuit_docket":"17-MR-1086","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Jorgensen","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Bloomingdale Township","requesting_party":"Warren R. Garlick","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint seeking property assessment data in a specific electronic format, finding the claim moot and barred by collateral estoppel. The court also declined to impose additional appellate sanctions against the pro se plaintiff.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2171013.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:10.745612","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2018-09-06"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (3d) 160689-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (3d) 160689-U","case_name":"City of East Peoria v. Property Tax Appeal Board","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2018,"county":"Tazewell","appellate_docket":"3-16-0689","circuit_docket":null,"published":0,"authoring_justice":"O'Brien","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Property Tax Appeal Board","requesting_party":"City of East Peoria","disposition":"remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court vacated the Property Tax Appeal Board's decision because the intervenor was improperly denied a hearing. The court held that the agency's Open Meetings Act violations were remedied by the remand of the administrative proceedings.","best_text_source":"Appellate Pipeline Source (legal parser)/cleaned_text_files/3160689_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:11.248488","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"2018-11-16"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (3d) 170330","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (3d) 170330","case_name":"Bocock v. Will County Sheriff","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2018,"county":"Bocock v. Will","appellate_docket":"3-17-0330","circuit_docket":"15-CH-976","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Wright","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Will County Sheriff","requesting_party":"Charles Bocock","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of two FOIA complaints but reversed the dismissal of a third, finding that the plaintiff's request was not fatally unclear. The court held that the public body failed to follow the statutory procedures under 5 ILCS 140/3(g) for addressing requests it deemed unduly burdensome.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/3170330.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:11.696289","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2018-03-27"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (3d) 170330-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (3d) 170330-U","case_name":"Charles Bocock v. Will County Sheriff","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2018,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-17-0330","circuit_docket":"15-CH-976","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Wright","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Will County Sheriff","requesting_party":"Charles Bocock","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that a FOIA request for a milk container was moot due to lack of possession. It affirmed the denial of civil penalties and document requests due to an inadequate record, but reversed the dismissal of a third complaint, finding it legally sufficient.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3170330_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:11.936382","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2018-02-14"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (3d) 170667-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (3d) 170667-U","case_name":"Blanco v. Joliet Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2018,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-17-0667","circuit_docket":"17-SC-1207","published":0,"authoring_justice":"McDade","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Joliet Police Department","requesting_party":"Derian Blanco","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint due to an inadequate record on appeal. Because the plaintiff failed to provide necessary transcripts or reports of proceedings, the court presumed the trial court's dismissal was legally sound.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3170667_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:12.210791","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2018-09-10"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (3d) 170687-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (3d) 170687-U","case_name":"Charles Bocock v. Will County Sheriff","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2018,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-17-0687","circuit_docket":"17-MR-308","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Carter","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Will County Sheriff","requesting_party":"Charles Bocock","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of complaints regarding equal protection and requests for barber and meal schedules. However, it reversed the dismissal of the complaint regarding a FOIA request for mail records, finding the request was sufficiently specific.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3170687_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:12.210992","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2018-06-15"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (3d) 170726","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (3d) 170726","case_name":"Johnson v. Joliet Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2018,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-17-0726","circuit_docket":"17-MR-0673","published":1,"authoring_justice":"O'Brien","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"Joliet Police Department","requesting_party":"Maceo Johnson","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the requested disciplinary records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA because they were protected by the Personnel Record Review Act. The court concluded that section 7(1)(a) of FOIA, in conjunction with the Review Act, prohibited the disclosure of the requested disciplinary history.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/3170726.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:13.391176","site_category":"Personnel & Student Records","date_decided":"2018-06-19"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (4th) 170182","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (4th) 170182","case_name":"City of Danville v. Madigan","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2018,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-17-0182","circuit_docket":"16-MR-26","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Harris","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)"],"public_body":"City of Danville","requesting_party":"Kevin Flynn","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that documents possessed by a public body are subject to FOIA disclosure if they pertain to public business, provided they do not fall under specific statutory exemptions. The court affirmed the Attorney General's binding opinion that the City of Danville was required to disclose records related to its Housing Task Force.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/4170182.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:13.629955","site_category":"Public Records Definition","date_decided":"2018-04-25"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (4th) 170182-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (4th) 170182-U","case_name":"City of Danville v. Madigan and Flynn","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2018,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-17-0182","circuit_docket":"16-MR-26","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Harris","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)"],"public_body":"City of Danville","requesting_party":"Kevin Flynn","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the Attorney General's binding opinion requiring the City of Danville to disclose records under FOIA was not clearly erroneous. The court clarified that while not all documents in a public body's possession are public records, the documents in question pertained to public business and were subject to disclosure.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4170182_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:13.630021","site_category":"Public Records Definition","date_decided":"2018-03-28"},{"dedup_key":"2018 IL App (5th) 160468-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2018 IL App (5th) 160468-U","case_name":"Marlon L. Watford v. Jamie Boyd and Bobbi Wheeler","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2018,"county":"Randolph","appellate_docket":"5-16-0468","circuit_docket":"16-MR-83","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Goldenhersh","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Not specified (Department of Corrections employees)","requesting_party":"Marlon L. Watford","disposition":"remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court vacated the circuit court's sua sponte dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint. The court held that the dismissal was premature because it occurred before the defendants were served or had an opportunity to respond.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/5160468_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:13.630519","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2018-07-30"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (1st) 170780","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (1st) 170780","case_name":"Kelly v. Village of Kenilworth","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2019,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-17-0780","circuit_docket":"16-CH-5192","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lampkin","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(d)"],"public_body":"Village of Kenilworth, Illinois State Police, Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, and Cook County Medical Examiner","requesting_party":"John Q. Kelly","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that while the defendants demonstrated an ongoing investigation under FOIA section 7(1)(d), they failed to meet their burden of proving that the entirety of the withheld files were exempt. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the defendants and remanded the case for further proceedings to allow for proper compliance with FOIA procedures.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1170780.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:15.099261","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2019-06-21"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (1st) 172796-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (1st) 172796-U","case_name":"Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7 v. City of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2019,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-17-2796","circuit_docket":"14 CH 17454","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Hall","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Chicago and Department of Police of the City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Chicago Tribune Company","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the underlying Chicago Police Department complaint registry files sought by the FOIA requester had already been released. The court declined to address whether certain file contents could be withheld under FOIA, noting that the plaintiff failed to argue that any exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1172796_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:15.099424","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2019-01-25"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (1st) 172907","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (1st) 172907","case_name":"City of Chicago v. Fraternal Order of Police, Chicago Lodge No. 7","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2019,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-17-2907","circuit_docket":"16-CH-9793","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lampkin","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Chicago","requesting_party":null,"disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that an arbitration award requiring the destruction of police misconduct records violated a well-defined public policy favoring the retention of public records. The court reasoned that the Local Records Act, the State Records Act, and FOIA collectively establish a policy that prevents the destruction of records necessary for public access and municipal accountability.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1172907.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:15.099465","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2019-03-29"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (1st) 180772-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (1st) 180772-U","case_name":"Lloyd Miller v. The Village of Mount Prospect, et al.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2019,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-18-0772","circuit_docket":"17 CH 9069","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Lavin","statute":[],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Village of Mount Prospect Board of Fire and Police Commissioners","requesting_party":"Lloyd Miller","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the discharge of a firefighter, noting that the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of any formal FOIA request in the record to support his due process claim regarding discovery. The mention of FOIA is incidental to the court's finding that the plaintiff failed to preserve his discovery arguments for appeal.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1180772_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:15.635565","site_category":"Other","date_decided":"2019-04-09"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (1st) 181115","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (1st) 181115","case_name":"Timpone v. Illinois Student Assistance Comm’n","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2019,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-18-1115","circuit_docket":"2016-CH-0011386","published":1,"authoring_justice":"McBride","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)"],"public_body":"Illinois Student Assistance Commission","requesting_party":"Brian Timpone","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the names of Monetary Award Program (MAP) grant recipients are exempt from disclosure under FOIA section 7(1)(b) because their release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Consequently, the court reversed the circuit court's summary judgment in favor of the requester and the associated award of attorney fees.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1181115.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:16.206649","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2019-12-11"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (1st) 181426","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (1st) 181426","case_name":"NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2019,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-18-1426","circuit_docket":"17-CH-09589","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lampkin","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that records concerning the police shooting of a minor are not exempt from FOIA disclosure under the Juvenile Court Act's confidentiality provisions. The court determined that the records did not relate to a minor who had been investigated, arrested, or taken into custody for a criminal offense, thus requiring their release.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/1181426.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:16.206765","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2019-09-05"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (2d) 170775","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (2d) 170775","case_name":"Walker v. Bruscato","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2019,"county":"Capacity as Winnebago","appellate_docket":"2-17-0775","circuit_docket":"15-MR-189","published":1,"authoring_justice":"McLaren","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"Winnebago County State’s Attorney","requesting_party":"David D. Walker","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed summary judgment for the State's Attorney, holding that the plaintiff's FOIA request for grand jury materials was properly denied because the requested records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA as information prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law. The court further determined that additional discovery was unnecessary as the plaintiff had already received the requested grand jury transcript.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2170775.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:17.740127","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2019-07-30"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (2d) 170779","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (2d) 170779","case_name":"Williams v. Bruscato","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2019,"county":"Winnebago","appellate_docket":"2-17-0779","circuit_docket":"15-MR-123","published":1,"authoring_justice":"McLaren","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"Winnebago County State’s Attorney","requesting_party":"Marvin Williams","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether grand jury records are exempt from FOIA disclosure under the exemption for information prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law. The court held that while certain grand jury materials are protected, it reversed the summary judgment regarding count I, remanding for further consideration of specific requested records.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2170779.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:17.843145","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2019-05-20"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (2d) 180305-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (2d) 180305-U","case_name":"Joseph Varan v. Jesse White, in His Official Capacity as Illinois Secretary of State","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2019,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-18-0305","circuit_docket":"16-MR-543","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Spence","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Secretary of State","requesting_party":"Joseph Varan","disposition":"reversed_and_remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court held that the circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendant regarding the imposition of copying fees. Because the defendant failed to timely respond to the FOIA request, it was precluded from charging fees or claiming the request was unduly burdensome under section 3(d) of the Act.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2180305_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:18.314609","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2019-05-06"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (2d) 19-","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (2d) 19-","case_name":"Sweeney v. Algonquin Township Road District","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2019,"county":"McHenry","appellate_docket":"2-19-0026","circuit_docket":"17-CH-482","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Spence","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Algonquin Township Road District","requesting_party":"James M. Sweeney and International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 150","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's judgment in favor of the plaintiffs regarding their FOIA complaint and the dismissal of the defendant's counterclaims. The court also held that the counterplaintiffs failed to provide an adequate record to review findings on attorney fees and contempt.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2190026_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:18.585770","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2019-09-10"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (2d) 190217-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (2d) 190217-U","case_name":"Metropolitan Alliance of Police v. City of Crystal Lake","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2019,"county":"McHenry","appellate_docket":"2-19-0217","circuit_docket":"2017-CH-345","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Zenoff","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Crystal Lake","requesting_party":"Metropolitan Alliance of Police","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court dismissed the appeal as moot where the parties had settled the underlying dispute before the notice of appeal was filed. The court further held that no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied to the plaintiff's FOIA-related standing claims.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/2190217_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:18.877076","site_category":"Requester Status","date_decided":"2019-12-03"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (3d) 170532-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (3d) 170532-U","case_name":"Raymond Serio v. Putnam County Sheriff's Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2019,"county":"Putnam","appellate_docket":"3-17-0532","circuit_docket":"17-MR-1","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Carter","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(e-10)"],"public_body":"Putnam County Sheriff's Department","requesting_party":"Raymond Serio","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant, finding that the plaintiff, an inmate, failed to comply with the procedural requirements of FOIA section 7(1)(e-10). The plaintiff did not establish that the requested information was relevant to a current or potential case or claim, which is a prerequisite for disclosure to incarcerated persons.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3170532_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:19.195503","site_category":"Requester Status","date_decided":"2019-08-21"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (3d) 170819","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (3d) 170819","case_name":"Turner v. Joliet Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2019,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-17-0819","circuit_docket":"17-MR-1036","published":1,"authoring_justice":"O'Brien","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)","7(1)(b)","7(1)(c)","7(1)(d)"],"public_body":"Joliet Police Department","requesting_party":"Darius Turner","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, finding that the defendant properly applied exemptions and that the claims became moot once the requested documents were released. The court further held that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege willful and intentional noncompliance to warrant a civil penalty.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/3170819.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:20.337629","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2019-01-07"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (3d) 180118","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (3d) 180118","case_name":"Hosey v. City of Joliet","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2019,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-18-0118","circuit_docket":"17-MR-1334","published":1,"authoring_justice":"McDade","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)","7(1)(d)(iii)","7(1)(d)(iv)","7(1)(d)(v)"],"public_body":"City of Joliet","requesting_party":"Joseph Hosey","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for videotaped police interviews, holding that section 103-2.1(g) of the Code of Criminal Procedure prohibits the disclosure of such records. The court declined to address specific FOIA exemptions, finding the Criminal Code's production prohibition dispositive.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/3180118.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:20.337677","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2019-03-06"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (3d) 180742","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL App (3d) 180742","case_name":"Barner v. Fairburn","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2019,"county":"Fulton","appellate_docket":"3-18-0742","circuit_docket":"18-CH-59","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Wright","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Canton Police Department","requesting_party":"Chadwick N. Barner","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, finding that the defendants' documentation refuted the plaintiff's claims. The court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the plaintiff's request for a writ of habeas corpus to attend the hearing on the motion to dismiss.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/3180742.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:20.337699","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2019-07-30"},{"dedup_key":"2019 IL App (4th) 180206","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2019 IL 124552","case_name":"Rushton v. Department of Corrections","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"4th","year":2019,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":null,"circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Thomas","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Bruce Rushton","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that a settlement agreement between a private medical contractor and the estate of a deceased inmate is a public record subject to FOIA disclosure when the contractor performs a governmental function on behalf of the Department of Corrections. The court affirmed the appellate court's decision, concluding that the settlement agreement was prepared by or for the public body in the conduct of its business.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Rushton v. Department of Corrections, 2019 IL 124552.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:21.464446","site_category":"Public Records Definition","date_decided":"2019-12-19"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (1st) 181958","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (1st) 181958","case_name":"People v. Velazquez","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2020,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-18-1958","circuit_docket":"06-CR-7494","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Harris","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":null,"requesting_party":"Roberto Velazquez","disposition":"remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the circuit court erred in dismissing a FOIA-based motion for injunctive or declaratory relief on the grounds that it was filed in the wrong division. The appellate court ruled that the proper procedure was to transfer the matter to the chief judge for reassignment rather than dismissing the action.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - Flagged for Review/People v. Velazquez, 2020 IL App (1st) 181958.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":1,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:24.521022","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2020-07-17"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (1st) 190011","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (1st) 190011","case_name":"Mohammad v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2020,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-19-0011","circuit_docket":"17 CH 16963","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Mikva","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Mansour Mohammad","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chicago Police Department. The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding the adequacy of the defendant's search and compliance with his FOIA request.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1190011_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:24.521173","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2020-06-30"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (1st) 190925","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (1st) 190925","case_name":"King v. Cook County Health & Hospitals System","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2020,"county":"King v. Cook","appellate_docket":"1-19-0925","circuit_docket":"17-CH-10748","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Reyes","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"Cook County Health and Hospitals System","requesting_party":"Judy King","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that zip codes derived from mental health records are protected from disclosure under FOIA by the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Confidentiality Act. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's order for unredacted disclosure and remanded for the production of deidentified zip codes.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/King v. Cook County Health & Hospitals System, 2020 IL App (1st) 190925.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:24.956805","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2020-06-18"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (1st) 191131-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL 126675","case_name":"Mancini Law Group, P.C. v. Schaumburg Police Department","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"1st","year":2020,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":null,"circuit_docket":null,"published":0,"authoring_justice":"Garman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Schaumburg Police Department","requesting_party":"Mancini Law Group, P.C.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that the Schaumburg Police Department properly redacted personal information from traffic accident reports under FOIA. The court determined that the privacy interests protected by Section 7(1)(c) outweighed the public interest in disclosure, and that the Department's contractual arrangement with a third party did not constitute a waiver of these statutory redaction requirements.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Mancini Law Group, P.C. v. Schaumburg Police Department, 2021 IL 126675.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:25.572014","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2021-12-16"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (2d) 190244-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (2d) 190244-U","case_name":"Scott Peters v. Katherine M. Keefe, et al.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2020,"county":"McHenry","appellate_docket":"2-19-0244","circuit_docket":"18-CH-54","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Schostok","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"County of McHenry","requesting_party":"Scott Peters","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The plaintiff, an inmate, filed suit alleging violations of FOIA and constitutional rights regarding the denial of his information requests. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint, finding that the plaintiff failed to state a viable claim for relief.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/2190244_R23.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:26.813060","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2020-02-26"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (3d) 170158-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (3d) 170158-U","case_name":"Jamal Shehadeh v. Sheriff Michael Downey","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2020,"county":"Kankakee","appellate_docket":"3-17-0158","circuit_docket":"16-L-107","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Holdridge","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Kankakee County Sheriff","requesting_party":"Jamal Shehadeh","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the requested information was either not a public record or was exempt from disclosure under section 7 of the Act. The court further affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's claims for sanctions, civil penalties, and costs.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3170158_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:27.470062","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2020-02-05"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (3d) 190374-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (3d) 190374-U","case_name":"Antonio Sherrod v. The City of Kankakee","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2020,"county":"Kankakee","appellate_docket":"3-19-0374","circuit_docket":"18-MR-302","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Schmidt","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Kankakee","requesting_party":"Antonio Sherrod","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, finding that the claims were moot because the City had produced the requested records. The court further held that the City did not violate FOIA regarding records it did not possess and that the plaintiff waived arguments not raised in the trial court.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/3190374_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:29.149271","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2020-07-29"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (4th) 190192-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (4th) 190192-U","case_name":"Nolan Watson v. Lisa Weitekamp","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2020,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-19-0192","circuit_docket":"18-MR-689","published":0,"authoring_justice":"DeArmond","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Nolan Watson","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint because he failed to state a cause of action under FOIA. The court held that a FOIA claim must be brought against a public body, and the plaintiff improperly named only an individual public officer as a defendant.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4190192_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:29.149556","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"2020-05-06"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (4th) 190293-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (4th) 190293-U","case_name":"Samuel Gayden v. Illinois Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2020,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-19-0293","circuit_docket":"18-MR-449","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Harris","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Samuel Gayden","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that specific provisions of the Corrections Code and Administrative Code regarding inmate access to records control over the general provisions of FOIA. Consequently, the Department of Corrections properly denied the plaintiff's request for documents in his master record file.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4190293_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:29.398202","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2020-12-18"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (4th) 190347-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (4th) 190347-U","case_name":"Vincent Boggan v. FOIA Office of the Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2020,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-19-0347","circuit_docket":"17-MR-1020","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Turner","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Vincent Boggan","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The circuit court's denial of the petitioner's request for civil penalties under FOIA was not against the manifest weight of the evidence. The appellate court found no evidence that the Department willfully and intentionally failed to comply with the FOIA request or acted in bad faith.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4190347_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:29.769801","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2020-07-28"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (4th) 190409-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (4th) 190409-U","case_name":"Vincent Carter v. John Baldwin","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2020,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-19-0409","circuit_docket":"18-MR-1008","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Turner","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Vincent Carter","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of civil penalties under FOIA, finding that the Department of Corrections did not willfully or intentionally violate the Act. The record demonstrated that the Department conducted a reasonable search and provided the requested documents, negating claims of bad faith.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4190409_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:29.769845","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2020-09-02"},{"dedup_key":"2020 IL App (5th) 190016-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2020 IL App (5th) 190016-U","case_name":"Scott D. Peery v. Madison County State's Attorney's Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2020,"county":"Madison","appellate_docket":"5-19-0016","circuit_docket":"16-CH-684","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Overstreet","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Madison County State's Attorney's Office","requesting_party":"Scott D. Peery","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the circuit court improperly imposed a civil penalty against the public body because the evidence did not demonstrate a willful or intentional failure to comply with FOIA. The appellate court affirmed the judgment in all other respects but reversed the imposition of the civil penalty.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/5190016_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:30.506059","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2020-11-25"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (1st) 192028","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (1st) 192028","case_name":"Chicago Sun-Times v. Chicago Transit Authority","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2021,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-19-2028","circuit_docket":"18-CH-1234","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lampkin","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(v)"],"public_body":"Chicago Transit Authority","requesting_party":"Chicago Sun-Times","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that summary judgment was inappropriate because genuine issues of material fact existed regarding whether the release of surveillance video would jeopardize the effectiveness of the CTA's security measures under FOIA Section 7(1)(v). The case was remanded for a trial on the merits to determine the technical capabilities and limitations of the security system.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Chicago Sun-Times v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2021 IL App (1st) 192028.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:31.929135","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2021-06-24"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (1st) 192073","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (1st) 192073","case_name":"Lucy Parsons Labs v. City of Chicago Mayor’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2021,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-19-2073","circuit_docket":"18-CH-15005","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Cobbs","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(d)"],"public_body":"City of Chicago Mayor’s Office","requesting_party":"Lucy Parsons Labs","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court reversed a summary judgment in favor of the City, holding that the City failed to demonstrate that the requested 'action plan' was entirely exempt under FOIA. The case was remanded for the City to redact specific exempt information under section 7(1)(d) and produce the remainder of the document, with the court noting the circuit court's authority to conduct in camera review.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Lucy Parsons Labs v. City of Chicago Mayor’s Office, 2021 IL App (1st) 192073.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:32.053309","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2021-04-13"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (1st) 192268-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (1st) 192268-U","case_name":"Rodney Love v. City of Chicago and Ralph Price","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2021,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-19-2268","circuit_docket":"16 CH 317","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Pucinski","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Chicago and Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Rodney Love","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the plaintiff failed to present claims of error supported by well-reasoned argument, relevant legal authority, and citations to the record as required by Supreme Court Rule 341(h)(7).","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1192268_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:32.175153","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2021-03-09"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (1st) 192551","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL 127519","case_name":"Chicago Sun-Times v. Cook County Health and Hospitals System","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"1st","year":2021,"county":"Times v. Cook","appellate_docket":"1-19-2551","circuit_docket":"18-CH-08658","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Burke","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Cook County Health and Hospitals System","requesting_party":"Chicago Sun-Times","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that the Cook County Health and Hospitals System was not required under FOIA to create a new record by extracting and compiling data from its existing database to fulfill the plaintiff's request. The Court clarified that FOIA requires the disclosure of existing public records but does not mandate that public bodies perform research or create new documents to satisfy a request.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Chicago Sun-Times v. Cook County Health and Hospital System, 2022 IL 127519.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:32.175280","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2022-11-30"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (1st) 200088-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (1st) 200088-U","case_name":"Vernon Tolbert v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2021,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-20-0088","circuit_docket":"18 CH 13208","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Lampkin","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Vernon Tolbert","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the doctrine of res judicata bars the plaintiff from raising a FOIA claim that relies on materials previously litigated between the same parties concerning the same underlying criminal case. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Tolbert v. Chicago Police Department, 2021 IL App (1st) 200088-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:32.431385","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2021-09-16"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (1st) 200225","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (1st) 200225","case_name":"Fisher v. Office of the Illinois Attorney General","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2021,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-20-0225","circuit_docket":"19-CH-6649","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Hoffman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(f)"],"public_body":"Office of the Illinois Attorney General","requesting_party":"Ian H. Fisher","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request, holding that communications between the Attorney General's office and a third-party claims administrator regarding a settlement distribution plan constituted exempt deliberative material under section 7(1)(f) of the Act. The court found these records were part of the agency's internal process for formulating policy and final distribution plans.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Fisher v. Office of the Illinois Attorney General, 2021 IL App (1st) 200225.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:32.596567","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2021-03-12"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (1st) 200424-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (1st) 200424-U","case_name":"Watson v. Foxx","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2021,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-20-0424","circuit_docket":"2016 CH 10481","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Fitzgerald Smith","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Cook County State's Attorney's Office","requesting_party":"Nolan Watson","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint for FOIA costs and civil penalties. The court held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to attorney fees or civil penalties under sections 11(i) or 11(j) of FOIA.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/1200424_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:33.475971","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2021-02-16"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (1st) 200429","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (1st) 200429","case_name":"Greer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2021,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-20-0429","circuit_docket":"19-M1-100657","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Walker","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Education of the City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Tyrone Greer","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a default judgment against the Board but reversed the grant of summary judgment, finding that the Board's affidavit failed to establish that the plaintiff's FOIA request for documents regarding racial discrimination claims imposed an undue burden. The case was remanded for further proceedings to allow the Board to properly identify documents and raise specific exemptions.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Greer v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 2021 IL App (1st) 200429.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:33.476016","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2021-03-31"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (1st) 200574","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (1st) 200574","case_name":"Green v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2021,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-20-0574","circuit_docket":"15-CH-17646","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Cunningham","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Charles Green","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether the Chicago Police Department was required to produce closed complaint register files under FOIA. The appellate court reversed the circuit court's judgment, ruling against the disclosure of the requested records.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Green v. Chicago Police Department, 2021 IL App (1st) 200574.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:33.952107","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2021-03-31"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (2d) 190971","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (2d) 190971","case_name":"Williams v. Bruscato","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2021,"county":"Capacity as Winnebago","appellate_docket":"2-19-0971","circuit_docket":"15-MR-123","published":1,"authoring_justice":"McLaren","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Winnebago County State’s Attorney","requesting_party":"Marvin Williams","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of statutory penalties under FOIA section 11(j), finding that the defendant did not act in bad faith in responding to the plaintiff's records request. The court further held that the plaintiff forfeited arguments regarding the defendant's compliance with a prior appellate mandate by failing to raise them in the trial court.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Williams v. Bruscato, 2021 IL App (2d) 190971.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:34.286907","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2021-07-21"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (4th) 190422-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (4th) 190422-U","case_name":"Shehadeh v. Raoul","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2021,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-19-0422","circuit_docket":"18-MR-546","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Holder White","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Attorney General (Public Access Counselor)","requesting_party":"Jamal Shehadeh","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's mandamus complaint, finding that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The court noted that the plaintiff sought to compel the Public Access Counselor to perform statutory duties rather than challenging the underlying FOIA denials directly against the public bodies.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/4190422_R23.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:35.505103","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2021-05-28"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (4th) 190539","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (4th) 190539","case_name":"City of Bloomington v. Raoul","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2021,"county":"Capacity as McLean","appellate_docket":"4-19-0539","circuit_docket":"17-MR-583","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Cavanagh","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":["2(c)(11)"],"public_body":"Bloomington City Council","requesting_party":null,"disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Bloomington City Council violated the Open Meetings Act by discussing topics outside the scope of the litigation exception during a closed session. The court determined that the council's discussion focused on public relations and negotiation strategy rather than actual legal theories or litigation defenses, thereby exceeding the permitted scope of 5 ILCS 120/2(c)(11).","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - OMA/ocr output/City of Bloomington v. Raoul, 2021 IL App (4th) 190539.searchable.pdf","text_quality":"ocr_fallback","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:35.738038","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"2021-04-26"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (4th) 200148-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (4th) 200148-U","case_name":"Rodney Love v. Illinois State Police","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2021,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-20-0148","circuit_docket":"18-MR-963","published":0,"authoring_justice":"DeArmond","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois State Police","requesting_party":"Rodney Love","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint. The court held that due to numerous deficiencies in the plaintiff's brief and the failure to provide a complete record of the trial court proceedings, it must presume the trial court's dismissal was proper.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Love v. Illinois State Police,  2021 IL App (4th) 200148-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:35.738144","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2021-10-20"},{"dedup_key":"2021 IL App (5th) 190434-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2021 IL App (5th) 190434-U","case_name":"Marlon L. Watford v. James Rowe, Jamie Boyd, Nancy Nicholson, and Bobbi Wheeler","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2021,"county":"Randolph","appellate_docket":"5-19-0434","circuit_docket":"16-MR-83","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Cates","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Kankakee County State’s Attorney’s Office","requesting_party":"Marlon L. Watford","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint because the requested discovery materials were already subject to a discovery order in the plaintiff's separate postconviction proceedings. The court also held that the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees, costs, or a civil penalty, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for default judgment.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Watford v. Rowe, 2021 IL App (5th) 190434-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:36.852795","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2021-10-04"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (1st) 200547","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL 128300","case_name":"Chapman v. Chicago Department of Finance","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":"1st","year":2022,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"128300","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Holder White","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(o)"],"public_body":"Chicago Department of Finance","requesting_party":"Matt Chapman","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that the records requested by the plaintiff constituted 'file layouts' within the meaning of section 7(1)(o) of FOIA. Consequently, the court ruled the records were exempt from disclosure and reversed the lower courts' judgments.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Chapman v. Chicago Department of Finance, 2023 IL 128300.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:37.118057","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2023-05-18"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (1st) 201262-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (1st) 201262-U","case_name":"Chicago Sun-Times v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2022,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-20-1262","circuit_docket":"19 CH 10513","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Delort","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Chicago Sun-Times","disposition":"reversed_and_remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The circuit court erred in granting summary judgment to the plaintiff without conducting an in camera review of the requested records. The appellate court remanded the case with instructions for the circuit court to perform an in camera review to determine which documents were protected from disclosure by prior court orders.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Chicago Sun-Times v. Chicago Police Department, 2022 IL App (1st) 201262-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:40.170416","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2022-01-21"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (1st) 210090","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (1st) 210090","case_name":"Calloway v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2022,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-21-0090","circuit_docket":"19-CH-11308","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Rochford","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"William Calloway","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the circuit court lacked a sufficient basis to grant summary judgment regarding FOIA requests for records involving a minor because the defendant's affidavit was inadequate and no in camera review was conducted. The case was remanded for the circuit court to determine whether the records are exempt from disclosure under FOIA and relevant juvenile confidentiality provisions.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Calloway v. Chicago Police Department, 2022 IL App (1st) 210090.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:40.170740","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2022-03-24"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (1st) 210673-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (1st) 210673-U","case_name":"Nathson Fields v. Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2022,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-21-0673","circuit_docket":"20 CH 2039","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Cunningham","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office","requesting_party":"Nathson Fields","disposition":"remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the State's Attorney's Office regarding a FOIA request for witness relocation records. The case was remanded with instructions for the trial court to conduct an in camera review of the withheld documents to determine the validity of the claimed exemptions.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Fields v. Cook County State's Attorney's Office, 2022 IL App (1st) 210673-U .pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:40.170783","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":null},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (1st) 210715","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (1st) 210715","case_name":"Ballew v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2022,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-21-0715","circuit_docket":"19-CH-7441","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Gordon","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(d)(i)"],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Jonathan Ballew","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the Chicago Police Department met its burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that the requested records were exempt from disclosure under FOIA because they pertained to an ongoing investigation and their release would obstruct that investigation. The court found the department's affidavit provided sufficient detail to allow for adversary testing, distinguishing it from cases relying on mere sweeping generalities.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Ballew v. Chicago Police Department, 2022 IL App (1st) 210715.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:40.170798","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2022-08-17"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (1st) 211016-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (1st) 211016-U","case_name":"Annette Elmore v. City of Chicago, Board of Education","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2022,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-21-1016","circuit_docket":"14 CH 18117","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Connors","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Education of the City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Annette Elmore","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the summary judgment in favor of the defendant, finding that the Board of Education conducted an adequate search and disclosed all responsive documents in its possession. The court also rejected the plaintiff's claims regarding due process, perjury, and judicial bias.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Elmore v. City of Chicago Board of Education, 2022 IL App (1st) 211016-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:40.170957","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2022-08-12"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (1st) 211194-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (1st) 211194-U","case_name":"Kraft v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2022,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-21-1194","circuit_docket":"20 CH 5792","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Rochford","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["3(g)"],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"John Kraft, Edgar County Watchdogs, Shreyas Gandlur, and Andy Thayer","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Chicago Police Department. The court held that the department sufficiently established that the plaintiffs' FOIA requests were unduly burdensome under section 3(g) of the Act.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Kraft v. The Chicago Police Department, 2022 IL App (1st) 211194-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:40.170983","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2022-06-09"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (2d) 210048-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (2d) 210048-U","case_name":"Edgar Pal v. City of Elmhurst and Elmhurst City Council","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2022,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"2-21-0048","circuit_docket":"20-CH-497","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Zenoff","statute":["FOIA","OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Elmhurst and Elmhurst City Council","requesting_party":"Edgar Pal","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s complaint alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act and FOIA, finding the record insufficient for appellate review. The defendants' cross-appeal was dismissed as moot because there was no remaining actual controversy.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Pal v. The City of Elmhurst, 2022 IL App (2d) 210048-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:40.669688","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2022-02-18"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (2d) 210107-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (2d) 210107-U","case_name":"Robinson v. Township High School District 113","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2022,"county":"Lake","appellate_docket":"2-21-0107","circuit_docket":"19-CH-1318","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Zenoff","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Township High School District 113","requesting_party":"Mary Robinson","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the trial court's denial of FOIA disclosure because the plaintiff failed to include the in camera emails in the record on appeal. Consequently, the court presumed the trial court's ruling was in conformity with the law and had a sufficient factual basis.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Robinson v. Township High School District 113, 2022 IL App (2d) 210107-U .pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:41.497520","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2022-01-19"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (2d) 210704","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (2d) 210704","case_name":"River Breeze, LLC v. Granholm","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2022,"county":"Kane","appellate_docket":"2-21-0704","circuit_docket":"20-CH-376","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Schostok","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Aurora Downtown","requesting_party":"River Breeze, LLC","disposition":"remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the plaintiff's FOIA claim at the pleading stage by prematurely determining that Aurora Downtown was not a 'subsidiary body' subject to FOIA. The appellate court vacated the dismissal and remanded the case for further development of the evidentiary record regarding the entity's status.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/River Breeze LLC v. Granholm 2022 IL App (2d) 210704.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:41.811007","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"2022-12-01"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (3d) 210270-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (3d) 210270-U","case_name":"John Kraft and Edgar County Watchdogs, Inc. v. City of Kankakee","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2022,"county":"Kankakee","appellate_docket":"3-21-0270","circuit_docket":"19-CH-146","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Lytton","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Kankakee","requesting_party":"John Kraft and Edgar County Watchdogs, Inc.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiffs' FOIA complaint, finding the matter moot because the plaintiffs eventually received the requested documents. The court further held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to attorney fees or civil penalties because the City's initial denial was reasonable and did not violate FOIA.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Kraft v. City of Kankakee, 2022 IL App (3d) 210270-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:42.273279","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2022-06-07"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (3d) 210527-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (3d) 210527-U","case_name":"Jason E. Cohee v. Peoria County State’s Attorney’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2022,"county":"Peoria","appellate_docket":"3-21-0527","circuit_docket":"21-MR-711","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Daugherity","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Peoria County State’s Attorney’s Office","requesting_party":"Jason E. Cohee","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the court did not err in denying a motion to continue or in finding that the requested documents were exempt from disclosure under 5 ILCS 140/7(1)(c) as an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court further rejected the plaintiff's argument that the Lieber balancing test was eliminated by 2010 FOIA amendments.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Cohee v. Peoria County State's Attorney's Office, 2022 IL App (3d) 210527-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:42.870173","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2022-12-02"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (4th) 210071","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (4th) 210071","case_name":"Staake v. Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2022,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-21-0071","circuit_docket":"18-MR-710","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Jared M. Staake","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that while mid-litigation disclosure of FOIA records does not automatically establish bad faith, the Department of Corrections' failure to provide a detailed factual basis for its initial denial created a genuine issue of material fact. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment regarding the withheld educational documents and remanded for further proceedings.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Staake v. Illinois Department of Corrections, 2022 IL App (4th) 210071.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:43.175243","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2022-06-06"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (4th) 210290","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (4th) 210290","case_name":"Martinez v. City of Springfield","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2022,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-21-0290","circuit_docket":"2020-CH-99","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Knecht","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Springfield and Springfield Police Department","requesting_party":"Freddy Martinez","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a FOIA requester who receives requested documents after filing suit may still be considered a prevailing party entitled to attorney fees. The appellate court reversed the trial court's summary judgment and remanded the case for a determination of reasonable attorney fees.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Martinez v. City of Springfield, 2022 IL App (4th) 210290.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:43.396283","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2022-07-14"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (4th) 210378","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (4th) 210378","case_name":"Donley v. City of Springfield","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2022,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-21-0378","circuit_docket":"20-CH-140","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Springfield and the Springfield Police Department","requesting_party":"Robert Donley","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a FOIA requester who failed to provide necessary information to the public body to facilitate the disclosure of records is not entitled to attorney fees. The court concluded that the plaintiff's failure to cooperate with the public body's reasonable requests for information regarding his litigation status precluded him from prevailing in his FOIA lawsuit.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Donley v. City of Springfield, 2022 IL App (4th) 210378.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:43.700683","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2022-12-06"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (4th) 210564-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (4th) 210564-U","case_name":"Trent Warren v. The City of Urbana","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2022,"county":"Champaign","appellate_docket":"4-21-0564","circuit_docket":"21-MR-410","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Zenoff","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)","7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"City of Urbana","requesting_party":"Trent Warren","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the municipality properly redacted information under FOIA exemptions 7(1)(b) and 7(1)(c). The court further found that the City provided a sufficiently detailed factual basis for the redactions as required by section 9(b) of the Act.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Warren v. The City of Urbana, 2022 IL App (4th) 210564-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:43.952876","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2022-08-09"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (4th) 210667-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (4th) 210667-U","case_name":"Trent Jacob Warren v. The Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2022,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-21-0667","circuit_docket":"21MR26","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Zenoff","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["3(g)"],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Trent Jacob Warren","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the Department of Corrections properly denied the requests as unduly burdensome under section 3(g) because the records had already been provided to the plaintiff. The court concluded the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for a FOIA violation.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Warren v. The Department of Corrections, 2022 IL App (4th) 210667-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:43.952950","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2022-11-14"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (4th) 220204","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (4th) 220204","case_name":"Hurlbert v. Edmonds","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2022,"county":"Official Capacity as Chief","appellate_docket":"4-22-0204","circuit_docket":"21-MR-34","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Turner","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(i)"],"public_body":"Jo Daviess County","requesting_party":"Roger W. Hurlbert","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for GIS data, holding that the county properly invoked the section 7(1)(i) exemption for valuable commercial information. The court further held that the plaintiff forfeited his argument regarding the legality of the county's user fees under section 6 of FOIA due to a lack of development in the circuit court.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Hurlbert v. Edmonds 2022 IL App (4th) 220204.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:44.100463","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2022-11-30"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (4th) 220334-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (4th) 220334-U","case_name":"Darrion O. Foote v. Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2022,"county":"Winnebago","appellate_docket":"4-22-0334","circuit_docket":"21MR274","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Winnebago County Sheriff’s Office","requesting_party":"Darrion O. Foote","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim. The court held that the plaintiff failed to plead a cause of action because the defendant did not possess the requested records and the plaintiff sent his requests to the wrong public body.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Foote v. Winnebago County Sheriff's Office, 2022 IL App (4th) 220334-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:44.233765","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2022-12-12"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (5th) 190258","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (5th) 190258","case_name":"Hart v. Illinois State Police","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2022,"county":"Madison","appellate_docket":"5-19-0258","circuit_docket":"18-MR-611","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Boie","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Illinois State Police","requesting_party":"Sandra Hart and Kenneth L. Burgess Sr.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Illinois State Police could not withhold FOID card application and denial letters under FOIA exemptions. The court determined that section 7.5(v) does not apply to requests for one's own information and that section 7(1)(c) allows for the release of personal information with the subject's consent.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Hart v. Illinois State Police, 2022 IL App (5th) 190258.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:44.797801","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2022-02-18"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (5th) 200249-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (5th) 200249-U","case_name":"Jared M. Smith v. Jeffrey Brown, et al.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2022,"county":"Johnson","appellate_docket":"5-20-0249","circuit_docket":"20-L-4","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Wharton","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(e-8)"],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Jared M. Smith","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The court dismissed the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction because the underlying order was not final. While the trial court referenced a FOIA exemption regarding the disclosure of retiree addresses, the appellate court did not reach the merits of the FOIA claim.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/Smith v. Brown, 2022 IL App (5th) 200249-U.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:45.589557","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2022-01-21"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (5th) 210108-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (5th) 210108-U","case_name":"Shane A. Lyberger v. Troy D. Cannon","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2022,"county":"Marion","appellate_docket":"5-21-0108","circuit_docket":"20-CH-40","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Welch","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Marion County Coroner","requesting_party":"Shane A. Lyberger","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, finding the request moot because the defendant had provided all responsive records in his possession. The court held that the nonexistence of requested documents or lack of possession is a valid defense to a FOIA complaint.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Lyberger v. Cannon, 2021 IL App (5th) 210108-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:45.589601","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2022-01-03"},{"dedup_key":"2022 IL App (5th) 210220-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2022 IL App (5th) 210220-U","case_name":"Nolan Watson v. Illinois Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2022,"county":"Jefferson","appellate_docket":"5-21-0220","circuit_docket":"19-MR-217","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Vaughan","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Nolan Watson","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's denial of attorney fees and costs under section 11(i) of FOIA. The court held that because the plaintiff did not prevail on the merits of his FOIA complaint, he was not entitled to an award of fees and costs.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Watson v. Illinoois Department of Corrections,  2022 IL App (5th) 210220-U .pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:45.589613","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2022-06-21"},{"dedup_key":"2023 IL App (1st) 211656","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL App (1st) 211656","case_name":"Thomas v. County of Cook","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2023,"county":"Thomas v.","appellate_docket":"1-21-1656","circuit_docket":"19-CH-6865","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Coghlan","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"County of Cook","requesting_party":"Oily Thomas","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for autopsy photographs, holding that such records are exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(c) of FOIA because their release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court further held that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the County acted in bad faith, thereby justifying the denial of civil penalties.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Thomas v. County of Cook, 2023 IL App (1st) 211656.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:46.093125","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2023-10-10"},{"dedup_key":"2023 IL App (1st) 211657","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL App (1st) 211657","case_name":"Glynn v. Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2023,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-21-1657","circuit_docket":"20-CH-5370","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lampkin","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(e)"],"public_body":"Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Ivan Glynn","disposition":"reversed_and_remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment to the Department of Corrections regarding a FOIA request for security video footage. The court held that the circuit court erred by failing to conduct an in camera review to determine if the requested footage was exempt under section 7(1)(e) as records related to the security of a correctional institution.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Glynn v. Department of Corrections, 2023 IL App (1st) 211657.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:46.179999","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2023-03-02"},{"dedup_key":"2023 IL App (1st) 220059-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL App (1st) 220059-U","case_name":"Darron Brewer v. City of Chicago, et al.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2023,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-22-0059","circuit_docket":"19 CH 14931","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Martin","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Chicago / Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Darron Brewer","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court reversed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment, finding the record insufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that a FOIA exemption justified the City's redactions. The case was remanded for further proceedings to resolve genuine issues of material fact regarding the applicability of exemptions to the requested records.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Brewer v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 220059-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:46.449449","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2023-11-02"},{"dedup_key":"2023 IL App (1st) 220265-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL App (1st) 220265-U","case_name":"Michael Lambert v. City of Chicago, Chicago Fire Department, and Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2023,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-22-0265","circuit_docket":"2021 CH 2889","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Fitzgerald Smith","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Chicago, Chicago Fire Department, Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Michael Lambert","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The court held that the plaintiff failed to timely file his notice of appeal following the trial court's ruling on his FOIA-based request for injunctive relief.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Lambert v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 220265-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:46.598511","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2023-05-16"},{"dedup_key":"2023 IL App (1st) 220791","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL App (1st) 220791","case_name":"Sauer v. Chicago Transit Authority","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2023,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-22-0791","circuit_docket":"2020-L-8250","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Hyman","statute":[],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Transit Authority","requesting_party":"Neusa Sauer","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"This is a personal injury case concerning the statute of limitations and the relation-back doctrine for amended complaints. The court mentions a FOIA request only in passing to illustrate the plaintiff's own confusion regarding the location of the accident.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Sauer v. Chicago Transit Authority, 2023 IL App (1st) 220791.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:47.436005","site_category":"Other","date_decided":"2023-05-22"},{"dedup_key":"2023 IL App (1st) 221815-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL App (1st) 221815-U","case_name":"Makiel v. Foxx","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2023,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-22-1815","circuit_docket":"2021 CH 05621","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Walker","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(d)(i)"],"public_body":"State's Attorney of Cook County","requesting_party":"Daniel Makiel","disposition":"reversed_and_remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The trial court erred in granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment because the defendant failed to demonstrate that the requested records were exempt from disclosure under section 7(1)(d)(i) of FOIA. The appellate court held that section 7(1)(d)(i) does not allow for a categorical assertion of an exemption without evidence of interference with a law enforcement proceeding.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/Makiel v. Foxx, 2023 IL App (1st) 221815-U.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:47.843598","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2023-12-20"},{"dedup_key":"2023 IL App (2d) 220349","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL App (2d) 220349","case_name":"Kenneally v. Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2023,"county":"Caption","appellate_docket":"2-22-0349","circuit_docket":"21-CH-74","published":1,"authoring_justice":"McLaren","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Patrick D. Kenneally, McHenry County State’s Attorney","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the specific disclosure requirements under section 3-5-1(b) of the Unified Code of Corrections control over the general disclosure provisions of FOIA. Because the Department of Corrections did not approve the disclosure of the requested master record files, the trial court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department was affirmed.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Kenneally v. Department of Corrections, 2023 IL App (2d) 220349.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:48.890274","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2023-06-22"},{"dedup_key":"2023 IL App (3d) 210520","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL App (3d) 210520","case_name":"Edgar County Watchdogs v. Joliet Township","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2023,"county":"Edgar","appellate_docket":"3-21-0520","circuit_docket":"20-CH-683","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Hettel","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Joliet Township","requesting_party":"Edgar County Watchdogs and Kirk Allen","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a public body does not act in bad faith under FOIA by requesting reimbursement for third-party costs incurred to fulfill a request for a hard drive image when the public body lacks the internal expertise to perform the task. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of civil penalties against the Township.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Edgar County Watchdogs v. Joliet Township, 2023 IL App (3d) 210520.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:50.317169","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2023-02-23"},{"dedup_key":"2023 IL App (3d) 220392","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL App (3d) 220392","case_name":"Kieken v. City of Joliet","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2023,"county":"Will","appellate_docket":"3-22-0392","circuit_docket":"21-CH-448","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Davenport","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Joliet","requesting_party":"John Kieken","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed an award of attorney fees to a FOIA requester, holding that the plaintiff was a prevailing party entitled to fees even though the City produced the requested documents after the complaint was filed, rendering the underlying request moot. The court found no abuse of discretion in the circuit court's determination of reasonable attorney fees.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Kieken v. City of Joliet, 2023 IL App (3d) 220392.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:50.722441","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2023-10-17"},{"dedup_key":"2023 IL App (4th) 220455-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2023 IL App (4th) 220455-U","case_name":"Jamal Shehadeh v. Sangamon County Sheriff","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2023,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-22-0455","circuit_docket":"21-MR-1626","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(e-10)"],"public_body":"Sangamon County Sheriff","requesting_party":"Jamal Shehadeh","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court affirmed summary judgment for the Sheriff, holding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information in his FOIA request to trigger the exception to the section 7(1)(e-10) exemption. The court ruled that a public body is not required to independently investigate or search for litigation details to determine if a prisoner's request falls under the exemption's exception.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Shehadeh v. Sangamon County Sheriff, 2023 IL App (4th) 220455-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:50.722539","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2023-01-18"},{"dedup_key":"2024 IL App (1st) 221414","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2024 IL App (1st) 221414","case_name":"Better Government Ass’n v. City Colleges of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2024,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-22-1414","circuit_docket":"18-CH-09964","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lyle","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"City Colleges of Chicago","requesting_party":"Better Government Association","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that records requested under FOIA that are subject to FERPA protections must be produced only after the circuit court conducts an in camera inspection to redact personally identifiable information. The appellate court reversed the summary judgment in favor of the requester and remanded for the trial court to oversee these redactions.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Better Government Ass’n v. City Colleges of Chicago, 2024 IL App (1st) 221414.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:53.057958","site_category":"Personnel & Student Records","date_decided":"2024-09-19"},{"dedup_key":"2024 IL App (1st) 230139","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2024 IL App (1st) 230139","case_name":"Eberhardt v. Village of Tinley Park","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2024,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-23-0139","circuit_docket":"21-L-65042","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lampkin","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Village of Tinley Park","requesting_party":"Stephen Eberhardt","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether a violation of the Open Meetings Act could render a municipal contract void ab initio. The court held that subsequent ratification of the board's actions in properly noticed public meetings cured the alleged OMA violation, rendering the contract enforceable.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Eberhardt v. Village of Tinley Park, 2024 IL App (1st) 230139.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:53.058032","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"2024-04-24"},{"dedup_key":"2024 IL App (4th) 210467-UB","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2024 IL App (4th) 210467-UB","case_name":"Jason F. Woolsey v. The Illinois State Police","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2024,"county":"Jersey","appellate_docket":"4-21-0467","circuit_docket":"19-CH-27","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Cavanagh","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7.5(v)"],"public_body":"Illinois State Police","requesting_party":"Jason F. Woolsey","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court reversed the trial court's order, holding that section 7.5(v) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act prohibits the Illinois State Police from disclosing Firearm Owners Identification Card information, even to the applicant themselves. Consequently, the court vacated the award of attorney fees and costs to the plaintiff.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Woolsey v. The Illinois State Police, 2024 IL App (4th) 210467-UB.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:56.401375","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2024-03-19"},{"dedup_key":"2024 IL App (4th) 240377-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2024 IL App (4th) 240377-U","case_name":"McBroom v. Logan County Sheriff’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2024,"county":"Logan","appellate_docket":"4-24-0377","circuit_docket":"24-MR-1","published":0,"authoring_justice":"DeArmond","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Logan County Sheriff’s Office","requesting_party":"Benjamin McBroom","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The trial court properly dismissed the plaintiff's FOIA complaint because most of the requested information did not constitute a public record, and the defendant's uncontroverted affidavit established that all existing responsive records had been provided. The appellate court further affirmed the trial court's finding that the defendant did not willfully or intentionally violate the Act.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/McBroom v. Logan County Sheriff’s Office, 2024 IL App (4th) 240377-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:56.609332","site_category":"Public Records Definition","date_decided":"2024-11-22"},{"dedup_key":"2024 IL App (5th) 180483-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2024 IL App (5th) 180483-U","case_name":"Nathanael Harsy v. Perry County Sheriff’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2024,"county":"Perry","appellate_docket":"5-18-0483","circuit_docket":"17-MR-6","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Boie","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Perry County Sheriff’s Office","requesting_party":"Nathanael Harsy","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint as moot because the defendant supplemented its responses, provided explanations for withheld records, and refunded overcharges. The court further held that the circuit court's finding that the defendant did not act willfully or intentionally in its FOIA compliance was not against the manifest weight of the evidence.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Harsy v. Perry County Sheriff's Office, 2024 IL App (5th) 180483-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:56.930280","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2024-06-03"},{"dedup_key":"2024 IL App (5th) 220824-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2024 IL App (5th) 220824-U","case_name":"Jamal Shehadeh v. The City of Taylorville","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2024,"county":"Christian","appellate_docket":"5-22-0824","circuit_docket":"22-MR-32","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Boie","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Taylorville","requesting_party":"Jamal Shehadeh","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint, holding that a letter sent by the plaintiff to the mayor did not constitute a 'public record' because it did not pertain to public business and was not in the possession or control of a public body. The court further noted that requiring a public body to provide a requester with a copy of their own correspondence does not further the legislative purpose of FOIA.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Shehadeh v. City of Taylorville, 2024 IL App (5th) 220824-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:57.448604","site_category":"Public Records Definition","date_decided":"2024-02-14"},{"dedup_key":"2024 IL App (5th) 230247-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2024 IL App (5th) 230247-U","case_name":"Robin W. Hickman v. Dora J. Mann","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2024,"county":"Bond","appellate_docket":"5-23-0247","circuit_docket":"22-CH-1","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Barberis","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Bond County Sheriff's Department","requesting_party":"Robin W. Hickman","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA complaint where uncontradicted evidence showed no responsive documents existed. The court also held that naming the compliance officer instead of the sheriff's department was a misnomer and that subsequent production of different records did not invalidate the prior response.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Hickman v. Mann, 2024 IL App (5th) 230247-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:57.752995","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2024-05-07"},{"dedup_key":"2025 IL App (1st) 220565-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2025 IL App (1st) 220565-U","case_name":"Charles Graham v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2025,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-22-0565","circuit_docket":"09 CR 21560","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Van Tine","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Charles Graham","disposition":"remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court vacated the circuit court's dismissal of the defendant's FOIA-based complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief. The court held that the circuit court should have transferred the case to the proper division rather than dismissing it, and remanded for further proceedings.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - Flagged for Review/People v. Graham, 2025 IL App (1st) 220565-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":1,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:57.753100","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2025-03-31"},{"dedup_key":"2025 IL App (1st) 231135","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2025 IL App (1st) 231135","case_name":"Taylor v. Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2025,"county":"Taylor v. Cook","appellate_docket":"1-23-1135","circuit_docket":"22-CH-7602","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Walker","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(d)(i)"],"public_body":"Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office","requesting_party":"Jamal Taylor","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the State's Attorney's Office failed to meet its burden of proof under FOIA by relying on conclusory affidavits to justify withholding records. The case was remanded with instructions for the public body to provide a detailed index and specific justification for why disclosure would interfere with pending law enforcement proceedings.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Taylor v. CCSAO 2025 IL App (1st) 231135.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:57.753135","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2025-06-20"},{"dedup_key":"2025 IL App (1st) 240629","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2025 IL App (1st) 240629","case_name":"NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC v. Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2025,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-24-0629","circuit_docket":"22-CH-1297","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Fitzgerald Smith","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department and Office of Emergency Management and Communications","requesting_party":"NBC Subsidiary (WMAQ-TV) LLC","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for body camera footage, holding that the recordings were exempt from disclosure because the subjects had a reasonable expectation of privacy. The court determined that the recordings were protected under the Law Enforcement Officer-Worn Body Camera Act, which is incorporated into FOIA's privacy exemptions.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/NBC Subsidiary v. CPD 2025 IL App (1st) 240629.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:58.714191","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2025-06-26"},{"dedup_key":"2025 IL App (1st) 242292-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2025 IL App (1st) 242292-U","case_name":"Disgrase Felyer v. The Village of Arlington Heights","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2025,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-24-2292","circuit_docket":"2023 M 1100425, 2023 M 1101376, 2023 M 300871, 2023 M 300874, 2023 M 300875","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Rochford","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Village of Arlington Heights","requesting_party":"Disgrase Felyer","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the circuit court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the Village of Arlington Heights in a FOIA dispute. The court held that the municipality complied with both Supreme Court Rule 191(a) and the FOIA statute, and the plaintiff failed to provide evidence to contradict the Village's affidavits.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Delyer v. Village of Arlington Heights 2025 IL App (1st) 242292-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:58.969300","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2025-08-14"},{"dedup_key":"2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U","case_name":"Joel W. Tynis v. The McHenry County Sheriff’s Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2025,"county":"McHenry","appellate_docket":"2-24-0488","circuit_docket":"24-MR-28","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Hutchinson","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"McHenry County Sheriff’s Department","requesting_party":"Joel W. Tynis","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaint, holding that the Sheriff's redactions for personal information and investigative plans were consistent with FOIA exemptions. The court further held that the plaintiff was not entitled to attorney fees or costs because he did not prevail and the defendant did not act in bad faith by relying on Supreme Court Rule 415(c).","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Tynis v. McHenry County Sheriff’s Department, 2025 IL App (2d) 240488-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:10:59.679946","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"2025-05-13"},{"dedup_key":"2025 IL App (2d) 250071-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2025 IL App (2d) 250071-U","case_name":"Bradley Walters v. McHenry County Sheriff’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":2025,"county":"McHenry","appellate_docket":"2-25-0071","circuit_docket":"24-MR-219","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Birkett","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"McHenry County Sheriff’s Office","requesting_party":"Bradley Walters","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court held that the plaintiff's FOIA appeal was not moot because he sought civil penalties and had not received the records from the defendant. On the merits, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that under FOIA, the 50-page free-of-charge provision applies to the requester rather than to each individual request bundled together.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Walters v. McHenry County Sheriffs Office 2025 IL App (2d) 250071-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:11:00.161107","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2025-11-18"},{"dedup_key":"2025 IL App (3d) 250046-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2025 IL App (3d) 250046-U","case_name":"Bobby R. Turner, Jr. v. Amy Vedra","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":2025,"county":"Du Page","appellate_docket":"3-25-0046","circuit_docket":"24-MR-356","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Bertani","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Naperville Police Records Department","requesting_party":"Bobby R. Turner, Jr.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The circuit court properly granted the respondent's motion to dismiss because no records existed responsive to the petitioner's FOIA request. Furthermore, the court held that a self-represented litigant who does not prevail in a FOIA action is not entitled to attorney fees.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/cleaned_text_files/Turner v. Vedra 2025 IL App (3d) 250046-U.txt","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:11:00.492382","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2025-12-03"},{"dedup_key":"2025 IL App (4th) 241067-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2025 IL App (4th) 241067-U","case_name":"Jared M. Staake v. The Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":2025,"county":"Sangamon","appellate_docket":"4-24-1067","circuit_docket":"23-MR-220, 23-MR-251","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Steigmann","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(e-10)"],"public_body":"Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office","requesting_party":"Jared M. Staake","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's FOIA complaints, holding that he failed to establish how the requested recordings were relevant to his claims under section 7(1)(e-10). The court further ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to civil penalties and declined to apply civil discovery rules to define relevancy under FOIA.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Staake v. Sangamon County Sheriffs Office 2025 IL App (4th) 241067-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:11:03.829197","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2025-10-31"},{"dedup_key":"2025 IL App (5th) 240307-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2025 IL App (5th) 240307-U","case_name":"Zillow, Inc. v. Moultrie County and Moultrie County Assessment Office","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2025,"county":"Moultrie","appellate_docket":"5-24-0307","circuit_docket":"21-MR-37","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Cates","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Moultrie County and Moultrie County Assessment Office","requesting_party":"Zillow, Inc.","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The appellate court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the trial court abused its discretion in finding no just reason to delay the appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 304(a). The court determined that appellate review of the FOIA production order was premature because related issues regarding civil penalties and attorney fees remained pending in the trial court.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Zillow, Inc. v. Moultrie County, 2025 IL App (5th) 240307-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:11:03.829890","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2025-01-09"},{"dedup_key":"2026 IL App (1st) 232227","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2026 IL App (1st) 232227","case_name":"Balzer v. Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2026,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-23-2227","circuit_docket":"19-CH-10061","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Ellis","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation (Metra)","requesting_party":"Jim Balzer","disposition":"reversed_and_remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a FOIA request is considered 'received' when it arrives at the public body's server, regardless of whether a third-party security filter holds the email in a queue. Because Metra failed to respond within the statutory five-business-day period from the date of receipt, the court ruled that Metra forfeited its arguments against compliance and the plaintiff was entitled to attorney fees as the prevailing party.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Balzer v. Northeast IL Commuter Railroad 2026 IL App (1st) 232227.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:11:04.234525","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2026-01-27"},{"dedup_key":"2026 IL App (1st) 241435-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2026 IL App (1st) 241435-U","case_name":"Tobias v. City of Chicago Office of the Mayor","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2026,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-24-1435","circuit_docket":"23 CH 05933","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Fitzgerald Smith","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Chicago Office of the Mayor","requesting_party":"James Tobias","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the trial court's finding that the City's search for records was reasonable and adequate. However, it reversed the grant of summary judgment regarding statutory civil penalties, remanding for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the City's delayed production of records was willful or in bad faith.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Tobias v. City of Chicagos Office of Mayor 2026 IL App (1st) 241435-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:11:04.234548","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"2026-03-02"},{"dedup_key":"2026 IL App (1st) 250205","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2026 IL App (1st) 250205","case_name":"Lucy Parsons Labs v. The Chicago Police Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2026,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-25-0205","circuit_docket":"2023 CH 01181","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Reyes","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Chicago Police Department","requesting_party":"Lucy Parsons Labs","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court reversed the circuit court's denial of civil penalties under FOIA, finding that the Chicago Police Department's justifications for its significant delay in responding to the records request were insufficient. The case was remanded for the circuit court to determine the appropriate amount of civil penalties to be assessed against the Department.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Lucy Parsons Labs v. Chicago Police Dept 2026 IL App (1st) 250205.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:11:04.283042","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2026-06-30"},{"dedup_key":"2026 IL App (1st) 252112-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2026 IL App (1st) 252112-U","case_name":"People v. Rucker (Better Government Association et al., Intervenors)","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":2026,"county":"Cook","appellate_docket":"1-25-2112","circuit_docket":"25 CR 0760401","published":0,"authoring_justice":"Johnson","statute":[],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Better Government Association, The Chicago Sun-Times, NBC Chicago, and Jamie Kalven","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":"generated","summary":"This is a criminal case where the court addressed the improper application of civil discovery rules to restrict public access to records. The court reversed the trial court's protective order, noting that the decision does not preclude future nondisclosure claims under FOIA by the record custodians.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - Flagged for Review/People v. Rucker 2026 IL App (1st) 252112-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":1,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:11:04.315060","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"2026-03-27"},{"dedup_key":"2026 IL App (5th) 241062-U","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2026 IL App (5th) 241062-U","case_name":"Carl Lenard and Prisoner Media-X v. The Office of the Illinois Secretary of State","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2026,"county":"Randolph","appellate_docket":"5-24-1062","circuit_docket":"23-LA-36","published":0,"authoring_justice":"McHaney","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Office of the Illinois Secretary of State","requesting_party":"Carl Lenard","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"syllabus","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint because he failed to comply with statutory requirements for submitting FOIA requests. Consequently, the defendant never received the requests, and its duty to respond was never triggered.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Lenard v. Office of IL Secretary of State 2026 IL App (5th) 241062-U.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:11:08.907375","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"2026-02-24"},{"dedup_key":"2026 IL App (5th) 241354","dedup_key_type":"neutral_citation","neutral_citation":"2026 IL App (5th) 241354","case_name":"Dorman v. The Madison County Board, et al.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":2026,"county":"Madison","appellate_docket":"5-24-1354","circuit_docket":"22-MR-254","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Clarke","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Madison County Board, Madison County Sheriff, and Madison County State’s Attorney","requesting_party":"Kotomi Dorman","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court reversed the circuit court's dismissal of a FOIA complaint, holding that the public bodies failed to demonstrate compliance with the statutory requirements of 5 ILCS 140/3(g) regarding the opportunity to narrow burdensome requests. The case was remanded for further proceedings to ensure proper adherence to FOIA's procedural prerequisites.","best_text_source":"Court Opinions - FOIA/Dorman v. Madison County Bd 2026 IL App (5th) 241354.pdf","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:11:08.907472","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"2026-02-10"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-143365","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"279 ill-app-3d 553","case_name":"Lieber v. Southern Illinois University","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":1996,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"5-95-0470","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Hopkins","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Southern Illinois University","requesting_party":"Stan Lieber","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that Southern Illinois University failed to meet its burden of proving that requested freshman housing inquiry records were exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The appellate court reversed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the university and remanded with directions to enter summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=143365","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:39.339133","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"1996-05-07"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-144906","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"30 ill-app-3d 525","case_name":"People ex rel. Hopf v. Barger","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1975,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"74-35","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Seidenfeld","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Wheaton","requesting_party":"State's Attorney of Du Page County","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed a mandamus order requiring city officials to comply with the Open Meetings Act regarding the disclosure of minutes and notes from a closed executive session. The court held that the statutory requirement for public meetings does not violate constitutional protections and that the city's closed session violated the Act.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=144906","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:39.339306","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1975-07-15"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-120846","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"131 ill-app-3d 376","case_name":"People ex rel. Hartigan v. Illinois Commerce Commission","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1985,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-84-0394","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Mills","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Commerce Commission","requesting_party":"Attorney General","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of an Open Meetings Act complaint, holding that the case was moot because the underlying meeting had already occurred and no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. The court declined to address the merits of the alleged OMA violations.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=120846","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:40.105964","site_category":"Other","date_decided":"1985-03-04"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-128527","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"179 ill-app-3d 161","case_name":"Gosnell v. Hogan","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":1989,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"5-87-0554","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Welch","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":["2(c)"],"public_body":"Board of Education for Community Unit School District Number 9","requesting_party":"David Gosnell and East Side Publications","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of an injunction against a school board, holding that topics not specifically excepted under the Open Meetings Act may be discussed in closed session if they are germane and integral to an excepted topic, such as real estate acquisition. The court emphasized a practical, substantial compliance approach to interpreting the Act's exceptions.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=128527","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:40.121370","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1989-01-24"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-136213","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"229 ill-app-3d 459","case_name":"Workmann v. Illinois State Board of Education","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1992,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-91-0889","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Bowman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois State Board of Education / Joint Committee on Secondary and Elementary School Sports","requesting_party":"Francis Workmann","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a plaintiff does not 'substantially prevail' under the FOIA for the purpose of recovering attorney fees when the requested records do not exist and the public body was under no legal obligation to create them. Consequently, the denial of attorney fees was affirmed.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=136213","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:40.631494","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"1992-05-21"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-134167","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"214 ill-app-3d 945","case_name":"Board of Education School District No. 67 v. Sikorski","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1991,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-90-1353","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"McMorrow","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":["2(c)(5)"],"public_body":"Board of Education School District No. 67","requesting_party":null,"disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding an executive session to discuss the postponement of a property sale. However, the court determined that the violation was cured and ratified by subsequent public meetings held by the Board.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=134167","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:40.631593","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1991-05-31"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-39455","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"132 ill-2d 49","case_name":"Hamer v. Lentz","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":null,"year":1989,"county":null,"appellate_docket":null,"circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Stamos","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"General Assembly Retirement System (GARS)","requesting_party":"Brian A. Hamer","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that records held by the General Assembly Retirement System are subject to disclosure under FOIA. However, the Court further ruled that an attorney representing themselves pro se in a FOIA action is not entitled to recover attorney fees under the statute.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=39455","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:40.631865","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"1989-10-25"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-132128","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"200 ill-app-3d 240","case_name":"Healey v. Teachers Retirement System","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1990,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-89-0781","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lund","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)"],"public_body":"Teachers Retirement System of the State of Illinois","requesting_party":"Robert M. Healey and Illinois Federation of Teachers","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for detailed enrollee information, including names, addresses, and pension data. The court held that the requested information was exempt from disclosure under the personal information exemption of the FOIA.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=132128","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:41.460528","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1990-08-02"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-124964","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"156 ill-app-3d 521","case_name":"Pecora Oil Company v. Johnson","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1987,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-86-0908","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Dunn","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Department of Revenue","requesting_party":"Pecora Oil Company","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the trial court's order compelling the Department of Revenue to produce records under the FOIA. The court held that the records were not exempt from disclosure under the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act and were also subject to inspection under the State Records Act.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=124964","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:41.754016","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1987-05-12"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-140846","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"260 ill-app-3d 765","case_name":"Cremer v. City of Macomb Board of Fire and Police Commissioners","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":1994,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"3-93-0647","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Breslin","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Macomb Board of Fire and Police Commissioners","requesting_party":"Jay Cremer","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court distinguished the Freedom of Information Act from the plaintiff's discovery request, noting that the plaintiff sought his own examination results for litigation purposes rather than public disclosure. The court held that the records were discoverable under the Administrative Review Law rather than governed by FOIA exemptions.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=140846","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:41.849862","site_category":"Public Records Definition","date_decided":"1994-04-14"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-39495","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"133 ill-2d 413","case_name":"Stratton v. Wenona Community Unit District No. 1","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":null,"year":1990,"county":null,"appellate_docket":null,"circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Calvo","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Wenona Community Unit District No. 1","requesting_party":"Anthony M. Stratton","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed allegations of Open Meetings Act violations during a student expulsion proceeding. The Supreme Court held that the purpose of the Act was upheld because the plaintiffs were provided adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard, despite their decision not to participate.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=39495","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:42.773165","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1990-02-16"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-148558","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"48 ill-app-3d 797","case_name":"Pope v. Parkinson","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1977,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"13602","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Reardon","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"University of Illinois Assembly Hall Advisory Committee","requesting_party":"Richard Pope","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the University of Illinois Assembly Hall Advisory Committee was not subject to the Open Meetings Act because it functioned as an advisory body rather than a decision-making body. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's request for financial records, finding that the University's public disclosure of summary revenue and expenditure reports satisfied constitutional requirements.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=148558","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:42.773379","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"1977-05-23"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-127568","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"171 ill-app-3d 888","case_name":"Hamer v. Lentz","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1988,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"87-2429","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Sullivan","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"General Assembly Retirement System","requesting_party":"Brian A. Hamer","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that an attorney representing themselves in a FOIA action is not barred from recovering reasonable attorney fees under the Illinois FOIA. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the reasonableness of the fees requested by the plaintiff.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=127568","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:43.100660","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"1988-06-10"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-151634","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"63 ill-app-3d 495","case_name":"Davis v. Board of Education of Farmer City-Mansfield Community Unit School District No. 17","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1978,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"14755","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Green","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":["2(c)(1)"],"public_body":"Board of Education of Farmer City-Mansfield Community Unit School District No. 17","requesting_party":"Richard C. Davis","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether a school board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session to discuss the superintendent's employment. The court held that the board's actions regarding the superintendent's contract termination and salary reduction did not violate the Act's requirements for public meetings or final action procedures.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=151634","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:43.121874","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1978-08-25"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-39539","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"136 ill-2d 334","case_name":"American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees v. County of Cook","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":null,"year":1990,"county":null,"appellate_docket":null,"circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Ryan","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"County of Cook","requesting_party":"American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME)","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act, a public body is not required to provide public records in a specific electronic format (computer tape) if it provides the information in a reasonably accessible format (printout). The court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that the defendants fulfilled their disclosure obligations.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=39539","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:43.866904","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"1990-05-23"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-123009","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"144 ill-app-3d 224","case_name":"City of Monmouth v. Galesburg Printing and Publishing Co.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":1986,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"3-85-0515","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Barry","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)"],"public_body":"City of Monmouth","requesting_party":"Galesburg Printing and Publishing Company","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the City of Monmouth failed to state a cause of action because it did not allege that the specific requested information constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the FOIA. The court further affirmed the constitutionality of the FOIA exemption, noting that a case-by-case analysis is required rather than a blanket exemption for all crime victim records.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=123009","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:44.225429","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1986-06-17"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-157830","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"95 ill-app-3d 254","case_name":"Richardson v. Dunbar","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":1981,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"80-255","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Alloy","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Knoxville city police committee","requesting_party":null,"disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The court referenced the Open Meetings Act to clarify that the statute encourages open meetings and does not mandate closed sessions for hearing complaints against employees. The OMA was cited only to address the plaintiff's argument regarding the defendants' conduct at a public meeting, not as the primary subject of the litigation.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=157830","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:44.345846","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1981-04-03"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-133778","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"211 ill-app-3d 809","case_name":"Quinn v. Stone","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1991,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-89-2638","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Coccia","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Alderman of the City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Jeanne Quinn","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that an individual alderman of the City of Chicago does not constitute a \"public body\" as defined under the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint seeking records of travel allowance expenditures from the defendant.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=133778","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:44.818781","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"1991-03-26"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-143000","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"276 ill-app-3d 714","case_name":"Local 1274, Illinois Federation of Teachers v. Niles Township High School, District 219","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1995,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-94-4304","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Hoffman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Niles Township High School District 219","requesting_party":"Local 1274, Illinois Federation of Teachers","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court reversed a summary judgment that had required the plaintiff to exhaust collective bargaining grievance procedures before seeking records under the Freedom of Information Act. The court held that the trial court erred by failing to reach the merits of the FOIA request, remanding the case for further proceedings.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=143000","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:45.381951","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"1995-11-22"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-120477","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"13 ill-app-3d 418","case_name":"City of Champaign v. Williams","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1973,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"12018","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Simkins","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 4","requesting_party":null,"disposition":"reversed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The court reversed a conviction for disturbing an assemblage, noting that it did not need to decide whether the Illinois Open Meetings Act granted the defendant a right to attend the meeting to conclude that his presence did not constitute a criminal disturbance.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=120477","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:45.382002","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1973-08-01"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-143018","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"276 ill-app-3d 912","case_name":"Paxson v. Board of Education of School District No. 87","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1995,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-94-4294","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"O'Brien","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Education of School District No. 87","requesting_party":"City of Northlake and its mayor","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act, holding that the plaintiffs failed to file their action within the 45-day statute of limitations. The court rejected the plaintiffs' attempt to apply the discovery rule to toll the limitations period based on the discovery of the violation by a third party.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=143018","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:45.554917","site_category":"Other","date_decided":"1995-12-08"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-147117","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"40 ill-app-3d 819","case_name":"People v. Board of Education of District 170","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1976,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"75-285","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Rechenmacher","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Education of District 170 of Lee and Ogle Counties","requesting_party":"State's Attorney of Lee County","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether a school board violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a closed session to discuss employment contracts. The appellate court reversed the trial court's ruling, holding that the board's actions regarding employment compensation did not violate the Act's provisions as interpreted by the court.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=147117","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:45.981088","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1976-08-09"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-115376","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"100 ill-app-3d 1008","case_name":"WSDR, Inc. v. Ogle County","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1981,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"81-267","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lindberg","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Ogle County Board","requesting_party":"WSDR, Inc.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Open Meetings Act requires public bodies to conduct votes openly rather than by secret ballot. While the court affirmed the order for disclosure of the votes, it noted that the Act does not provide for the invalidation of official actions taken during meetings that violate the statute.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=115376","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:46.572530","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1981-10-15"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-119984","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"127 ill-app-3d 413","case_name":"Lindsey v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1984,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"84-1869","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Linn","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Education of the City of Chicago","requesting_party":"Earlean Lindsey","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a trial court's preliminary injunction against the Board of Education was overbroad because it prohibited the Board from exercising its lawful power of appointment. The court clarified that while the Open Meetings Act allows for the voiding of final actions taken in violation of the Act, it does not authorize a blanket injunction against future lawful meetings.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=119984","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:46.620246","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1984-09-12"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-142011","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"269 ill-app-3d 1020","case_name":"Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 337 v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 338","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1995,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"3-94-0422","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Breslin","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Regional Board of School Trustees of Hancock/McDonough Counties","requesting_party":null,"disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Regional Board of School Trustees did not violate the Open Meetings Act regarding notice requirements for a rescheduled meeting. The court found that the Board provided sufficient public notice and that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any prejudice resulting from the change in meeting time.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=142011","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:46.652955","site_category":"Meeting Notices & Agendas","date_decided":"1995-02-10"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-151739","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"64 ill-app-3d 94","case_name":"Rockford Newspapers, Inc. v. Northern Illinois Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1978,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"77-422","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Guild","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Northern Illinois Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence (NICADD)","requesting_party":"Rockford Newspapers, Inc.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a private, not-for-profit corporation receiving government funding and subject to government regulation is not a 'public body' subject to the Open Meetings Act. The court reasoned that government supervision and the performance of public welfare services under contract do not transform a private entity into a subsidiary of the government.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=151739","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:47.352142","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"1978-09-15"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-135361","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"222 ill-app-3d 496","case_name":"Scott v. Illinois State Police Merit Board","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1991,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-90-2840","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"McMorrow","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":["2(c)(1)"],"public_body":"Illinois State Police Merit Board","requesting_party":"David R. Scott","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Board's meeting to discuss disciplinary action against the plaintiff fell within the Open Meetings Act exception for considering information regarding the employment or dismissal of an employee. Consequently, the Board did not violate the Act by conducting the meeting in the manner it did.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=135361","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:47.728050","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1991-11-21"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-135880","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"226 ill-app-3d 704","case_name":"Osran v. Bus","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1992,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-91-0643","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Bowman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Kane County","requesting_party":"Thomas Osran","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that documents related to a county's solid waste management plan were not exempt from disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. The court ordered the defendants to produce the withheld documents, finding that the policy of openness in the Solid Waste Act supported disclosure.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=135880","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:47.930329","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1992-03-20"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-137418","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"237 ill-app-3d 569","case_name":"Williams v. Klincar","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":1992,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"3-91-0809","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Haase","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Prisoner Review Board","requesting_party":"Martin R. Williams","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Prisoner Review Board failed to provide an adequate justification for denying a FOIA request for a parole progress report. The case was remanded for an in camera inspection to determine if the requested material falls under a valid statutory exemption.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=137418","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:47.930513","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"1992-11-13"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-143565","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"28 ill-app-3d 569","case_name":"People ex rel. Cooper v. Carlson","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1975,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"74-408, 75-3","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Rechenmacher","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Kane County Development Committee","requesting_party":"Richard L. Cooper","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Open Meetings Act applies to meetings of public bodies, such as committees and boards, but does not extend to voluntary meetings of staff or department heads who meet to coordinate their work and formulate recommendations. Consequently, the court affirmed the dismissal of the petitioner's suit seeking to compel public access to staff meetings of the Kane County Development Committee.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=143565","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:48.618888","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"1975-05-22"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-133838","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"212 ill-app-3d 187","case_name":"People ex rel. Ryan v. Village of Villa Park","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1991,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-90-0535","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Dunn","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":["2(c)(5)"],"public_body":"Village of Villa Park Board of Trustees","requesting_party":"James E. Ryan, State’s Attorney","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Village of Villa Park violated the Open Meetings Act by holding closed sessions to discuss matters, such as traffic and infrastructure improvements, that did not fall under the real estate acquisition exception. The court reversed the summary judgment for the defendants and remanded with instructions to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, including injunctive and declaratory relief.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=133838","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:48.621619","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1991-04-10"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-130767","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"192 ill-app-3d 530","case_name":"Baudin v. City of Crystal Lake","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1989,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-89-0240","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Dunn","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Crystal Lake","requesting_party":"William Baudin","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The appellate court held that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to the City without conducting an in camera inspection of the disputed records. The court emphasized that trial courts should generally perform an in camera review to verify claims of exemption rather than relying solely on the public body's affidavits.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=130767","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:48.737253","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"1989-12-15"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-126160","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"163 ill-app-3d 578","case_name":"Argo High School Council of Local 571 v. Argo Community High School District 217","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1987,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"86-2408","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Murray","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Argo Community High School District 217","requesting_party":"Argo High School Council of Local 571, IFT, AFT, AFL-CIO","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the school board's meeting held on a legal holiday complied with the Open Meetings Act, as the notice provided was sufficient and the actions taken were germane to the agenda. Furthermore, the court noted that any alleged violation was cured when the successor board subsequently affirmed the actions taken at the meeting in question.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=126160","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:49.214313","site_category":"Meeting Notices & Agendas","date_decided":"1987-11-20"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-143064","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"277 ill-app-3d 181","case_name":"Roehrborn v. Lambert","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1995,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-93-2983","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Tully","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Village of River Grove Police Department","requesting_party":"Daniel Roehrborn","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Freedom of Information Act and constitutional rights regarding the disclosure of police training test results. The court focused its analysis on the section 1983 liberty interest claim and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint without substantively ruling on the FOIA claim.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=143064","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:49.214518","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"1995-12-29"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-117473","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"112 ill-app-3d 81","case_name":"Potter v. Judge","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":1983,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"82-175","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Scott","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Princeton","requesting_party":"John Potter and E. P. Becker, Inc.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act, holding that applying amendments to the Act retroactively would unconstitutionally impair vested contract rights. The plaintiffs sought to challenge the issuance of industrial revenue bonds based on alleged procedural defects under the OMA.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=117473","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:49.819410","site_category":"Other","date_decided":"1983-01-06"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-134883","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"22 ill-app-3d 226","case_name":"Illinois News Broadcasters Association v. City of Springfield","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":1974,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"73-140","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Moran","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Springfield Human Relations Commission","requesting_party":"Illinois News Broadcasters Association","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court dismissed the appeal as moot because the underlying personnel issues were resolved and the statutory requirements for open meetings had been clarified by subsequent legislative amendments. The court declined to issue a declaratory judgment, finding that the case did not meet the criteria for the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=134883","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:50.135553","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1974-05-16"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-131303","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"197 ill-app-3d 592","case_name":"Swanson v. The Board of Police Commissioners of the Village of Lake in the Hills","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1990,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-89-0654","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Dunn","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Police Commissioners of the Village of Lake in the Hills","requesting_party":"Paul Swanson","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Open Meetings Act does not provide a private cause of action for the disclosure of information from a closed session. Consequently, the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's OMA claim with prejudice was affirmed.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=131303","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:50.500472","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1990-05-09"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-141552","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"266 ill-app-3d 421","case_name":"Copley Press, Inc. v. City of Springfield","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1994,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-93-0999","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"McCullough","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"City of Springfield and Illinois State Police","requesting_party":"Copley Press, Inc.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that records of an internal investigation into sexual harassment allegations against a police chief were exempt from disclosure under the FOIA exemption for personal information that would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The court affirmed the denial of the request, finding the privacy interest of the subject outweighed the public interest in disclosure.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=141552","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:50.788936","site_category":"Personnel & Student Records","date_decided":"1994-08-23"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-46324","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"83 ill-2d 191","case_name":"People ex rel. Difanis v. Barr","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":null,"year":1980,"county":null,"appellate_docket":null,"circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Clark","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Urbana City Council","requesting_party":"Thomas J. Difanis, State's Attorney","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' rulings that the Urbana city council violated the Open Meetings Act by holding a private meeting of a majority of its members to discuss public business. The court held that the Act's requirement for public meetings applies to such gatherings, rejecting arguments that the meeting was merely an informal social or informational session.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=46324","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:51.288980","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1980-12-19"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-129279","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"182 ill-app-3d 941","case_name":"American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) v. County of Cook","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1989,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-88-0070","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Johnson","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"County of Cook","requesting_party":"American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether a public body is required to provide requested public records in a specific electronic format (computer tape) rather than a printed format. The court held that the agency's election to provide the information via computer printout was permissible under the Freedom of Information Act.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=129279","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:52.043217","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"1989-05-04"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-156934","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"90 ill-app-3d 88","case_name":"People ex rel. Byron v. Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":1980,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"79-648","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Jones","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University","requesting_party":"Faculty Organization for Collective Bargaining","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a labor organization did not have a right to intervene in a mandamus and declaratory judgment action brought by a State's Attorney against a public body for alleged Open Meetings Act violations. The court determined that the intervenors' interest was no greater than that of the general public and was already adequately represented by the State's Attorney.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=156934","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:53.125186","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1980-11-10"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-154376","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"78 ill-app-3d 842","case_name":"People ex rel. Difanis v. Barr","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1979,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"15464","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Craven","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Urbana City Council","requesting_party":"State's Attorney for Champaign County","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether a caucus of city council members constituted a meeting of a public body under the Open Meetings Act. The court held that the Act applies to meetings of legislative, executive, or administrative bodies, and reversed the trial court's order that had imposed notice requirements on informal gatherings of council members.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=154376","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:53.125253","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"1979-11-28"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-140042","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"256 ill-app-3d 198","case_name":"Schessler v. Department of Conservation","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1994,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-93-0426","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Green","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(b)"],"public_body":"Department of Conservation","requesting_party":"Harold Schessler","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the circuit court's order requiring the Department of Conservation to disclose requested records. The court held that the Department failed to meet its burden of proving that disclosure would constitute a 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy' under the FOIA exemption then codified at section 7(b).","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=140042","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:53.850873","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1994-01-27"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-129298","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"183 ill-app-3d 1","case_name":"Staske v. City of Champaign","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1989,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-88-0748","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Spitz","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(b)(v)"],"public_body":"City of Champaign","requesting_party":"Paul Staske","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that witness names, addresses, and statements contained in a police traffic accident report are exempt from disclosure under section 7(b)(v) of the FOIA. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment, rejecting the argument that the exemption requires a showing of a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=129298","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:54.386121","site_category":"Police & Investigative Records","date_decided":"1989-04-28"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-127773","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"173 ill-app-3d 418","case_name":"Simonis v. Countryside Fire Protection District","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1988,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-87-1061","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Woodward","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Trustees of the Countryside Fire Protection District","requesting_party":"Lawrence Simonis","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The plaintiff alleged a violation of the Open Meetings Act during his disciplinary hearing, but the court reversed the suspension on the grounds that the evidence did not support a finding of intentional failure to perform duties, rendering the OMA claim moot or secondary to the primary administrative review.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=127773","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:55.394173","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1988-08-04"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-143136","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"277 ill-app-3d 777","case_name":"Twin-Cities Broadcasting Corp. v. Reynard","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1996,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-95-0688","circuit_docket":"95-CH-44","published":1,"authoring_justice":"Cook","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Illinois State University Athletic Council","requesting_party":"Twin-Cities Broadcasting Corporation","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a government entity with a substantial interest in requested documents may assert a FOIA exemption even if the entity currently in possession of the documents refuses to do so. The case was remanded to determine if the specific documents were exempt or if any potential exemption had been waived.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=143136","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:55.752640","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1996-01-19"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-125228","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"158 ill-app-3d 473","case_name":"Hoffman v. Department of Corrections","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1987,"county":null,"appellate_docket":null,"circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Rizzi","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Corrections","requesting_party":"Charles Hoffman","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that information regarding the procedures and drugs used by the Department of Corrections for lethal injection executions is subject to disclosure under FOIA. The court reasoned that such information is essential for public oversight and informed debate regarding the administration of the death penalty.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=125228","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:55.984944","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1987-07-15"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-146221","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"37 ill-app-3d 578","case_name":"Johnston v. City of Geneva","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1976,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"74-250","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Guild","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Geneva","requesting_party":"Betty Kern Johnston","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The plaintiff alleged a violation of the Open Meetings Act regarding a city council meeting, but the court declined to address the issue because it reversed the trial court's zoning decision on other grounds.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=146221","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:56.035176","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1976-04-29"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-141617","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"266 ill-app-3d 1007","case_name":"Cooper v. Department of the Lottery","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1994,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-92-2890","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"McNulty","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Illinois Department of the Lottery","requesting_party":"William R. Cooper","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a FOIA request for lottery vendor sales data, holding that the information was exempt from disclosure under the personal privacy exemption of the Illinois FOIA. The court determined that the disclosure of specific sales data for individual lottery agents would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=141617","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:56.544942","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1994-09-30"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-124216","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"151 ill-app-3d 136","case_name":"Smith v. Cook County Probation Department","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1986,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"85-1278","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Campbell","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Cook County Probation Department","requesting_party":"Thomas William Smith","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the dismissal of a FOIA request for probation records, holding that such records are not public records under the FOIA because they are specifically protected from disclosure by the Illinois Probation Act. The court concluded that the Probation Act's confidentiality provisions take precedence over general FOIA disclosure requirements.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=124216","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:56.814765","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1986-12-29"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-124749","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"154 ill-app-3d 899","case_name":"Wayne Township Board of Auditors v. Ludwig","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1987,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-86-0143","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Inglis","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Wayne Township Board of Auditors","requesting_party":"Wayne Township Board of Auditors","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The case concerns a dispute over attorney fees following a mandamus action regarding access to township records; while the underlying dispute involved FOIA-related access to public records, the appellate holding is limited to the recovery of attorney fees.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=124749","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:57.096615","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"1987-04-17"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-138575","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"245 ill-app-3d 474","case_name":"Carbondale Convention Center, Inc. v. City of Carbondale","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":1993,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"5-92-0143","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Goldenhersh","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"City of Carbondale","requesting_party":"Southern Illinoisan","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that a trial court's confidentiality order (gag order) does not constitute 'State law' under the FOIA exemption for information specifically prohibited from disclosure by federal or state law. Consequently, the City could not rely on the court order to deny a FOIA request for a settlement agreement.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=138575","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:58.127511","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1993-05-27"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-126805","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"168 ill-app-3d 101","case_name":"Bowie v. Evanston Community Consolidated School District 65","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1988,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"87-0580","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Freeman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Evanston Community Consolidated School District 65","requesting_party":"Cheryl Bowie, James Roberts, and Vanessa Gray","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the school district must provide requested test score records after redacting personally identifiable information, as masking such data does not constitute the creation of a new record. The case was remanded to determine if the plaintiffs qualify for a waiver or reduction of reproduction fees under the FOIA.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=126805","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:58.127620","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"1988-03-16"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-142844","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"275 ill-app-3d 508","case_name":"Freedom Oil Company v. The Pollution Control Board","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1995,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-94-0786","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Knecht","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Pollution Control Board","requesting_party":"Freedom Oil Company","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether the Pollution Control Board could conduct a meeting via telephone conference call under the Open Meetings Act. The court held that the Board had the authority to conduct the meeting by telephone and affirmed the Board's order, noting that the petitioner failed to show any prejudice resulting from the lack of formal rules for such meetings.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=142844","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:58.127642","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1995-09-21"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-125793","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"160 ill-app-3d 730","case_name":"Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board v. Homer Community Consolidated School District No. 208","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1987,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-87-0188","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Green","statute":["FOIA","OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Homer Community Consolidated School District No. 208","requesting_party":"Homer Association of Teachers, IEA-NEA","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Board lacked the implied authority to order discovery of documents related to collective bargaining negotiations. The court reasoned that the legislature's specific references to the Open Meetings Act and FOIA within the Educational Labor Relations Act did not grant the Board broad discovery powers not expressly provided by statute.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=125793","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:58.236882","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"1987-08-05"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-140136","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"256 ill-app-3d 887","case_name":"Hopf v. Topcorp, Inc.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1993,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-92-0773","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Cousins","statute":["FOIA","OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Topcorp, Inc. and Research Park, Inc.","requesting_party":"Jeanne Hopf et al.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that two private, for-profit corporations created by the City of Evanston and Northwestern University were not 'public bodies' subject to the Open Meetings Act or FOIA. The court determined that the corporations' receipt of partial city funding and city involvement in infrastructure did not constitute sufficient government control to trigger the requirements of the Acts.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=140136","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:59.243697","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"1993-11-12"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-126830","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"168 ill-app-3d 341","case_name":"Griffith Laboratories U.S.A. v. The Metropolitan Sanitary District of Chicago","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1988,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"87-1349","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Jiganti","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago","requesting_party":"Griffith Laboratories U.S.A.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that sampling data and calculations compiled by the Metropolitan Sanitary District were exempt from disclosure under the FOIA's investigatory records exemption. Disclosure was denied because it would interfere with pending or contemplated enforcement proceedings regarding the District's User Charge Ordinance.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=126830","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:59.520488","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1988-03-24"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-127342","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"170 ill-app-3d 85","case_name":"Hopf v. Topcorp, Inc.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1988,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"87-2100","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Lorenz","statute":["FOIA","OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Topcorp, Inc. and Research Park, Inc.","requesting_party":"Jeanne Hopf et al.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the defendant for-profit corporations were not 'subsidiary bodies' of the City of Evanston and therefore were not subject to the requirements of the Open Meetings Act or the Freedom of Information Act. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiffs' request for a mandatory injunction to open the corporations' meetings and records to the public.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=127342","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:18:59.527837","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"1988-02-05"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-141188","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"263 ill-app-3d 511","case_name":"Wayne County Press, Inc. v. Georgia Isle","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":1994,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"5-93-0639","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Welch","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(a)"],"public_body":"Wayne County Clerk","requesting_party":"Wayne County Press, Inc.","disposition":"remanded","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the trial court applied an incorrect burden of proof regarding the defendant's claim that marriage license applications were exempt from FOIA disclosure under the Vital Records Act. The case was remanded for the trial court to reconsider the matter with the burden of proof properly placed on the defendant to justify the exemption.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=141188","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:00.441317","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1994-06-17"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-39301","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"128 ill-2d 373","case_name":"Bowie v. Evanston Community Consolidated School District No. 65","court_level":"Supreme","appellate_district":null,"year":1989,"county":null,"appellate_docket":null,"circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Moran","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"Evanston Community Consolidated School District No. 65","requesting_party":"Cheryl Bowie, James Roberts, and Vanessa Gray","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The Supreme Court held that the Freedom of Information Act does not require a public body to create new records or manipulate existing computer data to redact exempt information. The court ruled that public bodies are not obligated to use computer capabilities to transform exempt records into non-exempt ones.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=39301","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:00.441421","site_category":"Search & Production","date_decided":"1989-04-20"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-127888","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"174 ill-app-3d 301","case_name":"Bromberek School District No. 65 v. Sanders","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1988,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"87-3448","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Freeman","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Regional Superintendent of Education for Cook County","requesting_party":"Bromberek School District No. 65","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The court addressed an Open Meetings Act claim as part of a broader challenge to a school district consolidation, but the opinion focused primarily on administrative jurisdiction and bias rather than a substantive OMA violation.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=127888","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:00.767620","site_category":"Other","date_decided":"1988-08-24"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-129427","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"184 ill-app-3d 28","case_name":"Kenyon v. Garrels","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1989,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-88-0804","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"McCullough","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Palestine Township","requesting_party":"Franklin L. Kenyon","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Freedom of Information Act does not require a public body to answer interrogatory-style questions or create new records to satisfy a request. Furthermore, the court found that the plaintiff's request failed to identify specific existing documents and that the township did not improperly withhold records.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=129427","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:01.515334","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"1989-06-08"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-139154","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"25 ill-app-3d 224","case_name":"The People ex rel. Junus Maciuba et al. v. Warren Cheston et al.","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1974,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"60045","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Drucker","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"University of Illinois Faculty Senate","requesting_party":"Junus Maciuba et al.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The case primarily concerns a tort claim against state employees and the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims; the Open Meetings Act is mentioned only in passing regarding the plaintiffs' separate, dismissed counts seeking access to faculty senate meetings.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=139154","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:01.676531","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1974-12-13"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-131480","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"198 ill-app-3d 936","case_name":"CBS, Inc. v. Partee","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1990,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-89-0801","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Egan","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(c)"],"public_body":"State’s Attorney of Cook County","requesting_party":"CBS, Inc.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the race of assistant State's Attorneys, as recorded in personnel files, is exempt from disclosure under the Illinois FOIA because its release would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under section 7(1)(c). The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal, finding that the privacy interest of the employees outweighed the public interest in disclosure.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=131480","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:01.676709","site_category":"Personnel & Student Records","date_decided":"1990-05-11"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-124847","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"155 ill-app-3d 692","case_name":"Hamer v. Lentz","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1987,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"86-0584","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Murray","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"General Assembly Retirement System","requesting_party":"Brian A. Hamer","disposition":"dismissed","relevance":"mention_only","summary_source":null,"summary":"The court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because the trial court's order failed to include the necessary Rule 304(a) language for a final and appealable judgment. Consequently, the court did not reach the substantive FOIA issues raised by the plaintiff.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=124847","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:02.598891","site_category":"FOIA Response Process","date_decided":"1987-04-24"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-119727","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"125 ill-app-3d 643","case_name":"PJS Enterprises v. Klincar","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"5th","year":1984,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"5-83-0609","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Jones","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Illinois Prisoner Review Board","requesting_party":"PJS Enterprises","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of a prisoner's motion to intervene in a lawsuit brought by a newspaper seeking access to parole hearings under the Open Meetings Act. The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying intervention because the prisoner's specific concerns were distinct from the general application of the Act to the Board's hearings.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=119727","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:03.022315","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1984-07-06"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-144305","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"29 ill-app-3d 48","case_name":"Haight v. Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 205","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":null,"year":1975,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"74-266","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Stengel","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Board of Education of Community Unit School District No. 205","requesting_party":"Billie Jean Haight","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether a school board violated the Open Meetings Act by taking final action to dismiss a teacher during an executive session. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, finding that the board's subsequent actions and minutes satisfied the requirements of the Act despite the initial closed-session discussion.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=144305","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:03.240567","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1975-06-05"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-141245","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"263 ill-app-3d 981","case_name":"David Blumenfeld, Ltd. v. Department of Professional Regulation","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1993,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-91-1876","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Scariano","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)"],"public_body":"Department of Professional Regulation","requesting_party":"David Blumenfeld, Ltd.","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that notices of disciplinary conferences sent by the Department of Professional Regulation to licensees are exempt from disclosure under FOIA. The court determined that the names and addresses of licensees constitute personal information, the disclosure of which would be a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the section 7(1)(b) exemption.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=141245","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:03.988148","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1993-01-19"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-132546","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"203 ill-app-3d 687","case_name":"Safanda v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Geneva","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1990,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-89-1256","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"McLaren","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Zoning Board of Appeals of the City of Geneva","requesting_party":"Elizabeth M. Safanda","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court addressed whether the trial court erred in dismissing counts of the plaintiff's complaint alleging violations of the Open Meetings Act. The appellate court held that the trial court improperly dismissed the OMA-related count and remanded the case for further proceedings.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=132546","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:04.021574","site_category":"Meeting Conduct & Participation","date_decided":"1990-10-02"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-123331","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"146 ill-app-3d 535","case_name":"Carrigan v. Harkrader","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"3rd","year":1986,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"3-85-0731","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Stouder","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(f)"],"public_body":"Peoria County Clerk / Peoria County Liquor Commission","requesting_party":"Deborah Carrigan","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Freedom of Information Act applies to records regardless of whether they were created before or after the Act's effective date. However, the court affirmed the denial of the request because the document was an opinionated recommendation exempt from disclosure under Section 7(f) of the Act.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=123331","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:04.345482","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1986-08-12"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-143848","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"282 ill-app-3d 385","case_name":"Ebert v. Thompson","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1996,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-95-3185","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Cahill","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)(i)"],"public_body":"Town of Maine","requesting_party":"Regan D. Ebert","disposition":"affirmed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court affirmed the denial of attorney fees, holding that because the plaintiff explicitly disclaimed proceeding under the Freedom of Information Act at the trial level, she could not invoke the Act's fee-shifting provisions on appeal. The court noted that the underlying dispute regarding access to public records was resolved in the trial court and not appealed.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=143848","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:04.466753","site_category":"Fees & Burdensome Requests","date_decided":"1996-06-28"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-142316","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"271 ill-app-3d 548","case_name":"The Copley Press, Inc. v. Administrative Office of the Courts","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1995,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-94-0461","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Thomas","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"Administrative Office of the Courts, Nineteenth Judicial Circuit, and Lake County Department of Court Services","requesting_party":"The Copley Press, Inc.","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the Administrative Office of the Courts and its related pretrial services agencies are part of the judiciary and therefore not subject to the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Consequently, the court affirmed the finding that FOIA did not apply and reversed the trial court's order requiring the disclosure of electronic monitoring system records.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=142316","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:05.345167","site_category":"Public Body Definition","date_decided":"1995-03-24"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-135667","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"224 ill-app-3d 1059","case_name":"Moscardini v. County Officers Electoral Board of Du Page County","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"2nd","year":1992,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"2-92-0174","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Dunn","statute":["OMA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"County Officers Electoral Board of Du Page County","requesting_party":"Robert L. Moscardini","disposition":"reversed","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The plaintiff challenged an electoral board's decision to remove his name from the ballot, alleging, among other things, that the board violated the Open Meetings Act by conducting deliberations in closed session. Although the court addressed the OMA claim, it ultimately reversed the board's decision on the merits regarding the validity of the nominating petitions.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=135667","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:05.370467","site_category":"Closed Sessions","date_decided":"1992-03-03"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-122873","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"143 ill-app-3d 370","case_name":"The Copley Press, Inc. v. The City of Springfield","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"4th","year":1986,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"4-85-0629","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Green","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":[],"public_body":"City of Springfield","requesting_party":"The Copley Press, Inc.","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the plaintiff did not have a First Amendment right to access the specific public records sought under the Freedom of Information Act. The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment on the pleadings and remanded the case for further proceedings.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=122873","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:05.681199","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1986-05-13"},{"dedup_key":"pre1996-129020","dedup_key_type":"pre1996_caselaw_access_project","neutral_citation":"180 ill-app-3d 1084","case_name":"Margolis v. Director of the Department of Revenue","court_level":"Appellate","appellate_district":"1st","year":1989,"county":null,"appellate_docket":"1-88-1413","circuit_docket":null,"published":1,"authoring_justice":"Freeman","statute":["FOIA"],"exemptions_cited":["7(1)(b)"],"public_body":"Illinois Department of Revenue","requesting_party":"Irving Margolis","disposition":"reversed_in_part","relevance":"relevant","summary_source":"generated","summary":"The court held that the trial court failed to perform the necessary balancing test to determine if the requested business registration information constituted a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under the FOIA exemption. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment and remanded the case for the trial court to properly address the privacy balancing issue.","best_text_source":"foia_caselaw_pre1996.jsonl#rowid=129020","text_quality":"native","splice_suspect":0,"in_suspect_folder":0,"enriched_at":"2026-07-13T18:19:05.681410","site_category":"General Records Exemptions","date_decided":"1989-03-15"}]