{
  "id": 2183342,
  "name": "TRUST No. 1105, Altorfer, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE PEOPLE ex rel. ROGER D. LITTLE, County Treasurer and ex officio County Collector of Taxes for Champaign County, Defendants (The City of Urbana, Defendant-Appellee)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Trust No. 1105 v. People ex rel. Little",
  "decision_date": "2002-04-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 4\u201401\u20140690",
  "first_page": "1033",
  "last_page": "1036",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "328 Ill. App. 3d 1033"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "388 N.E.2d 384",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "387"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ill. 2d 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2989884
      ],
      "year": 1979,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "341"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/75/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "488 N.E.2d 968",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "973"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 Ill. 2d 7",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3167464
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "17"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/111/0007-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "520 N.E.2d 316",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "320"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "121 Ill. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3202088
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "11"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/121/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "742 N.E.2d 741",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "743"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "194 Ill. 2d 493",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1096314
      ],
      "year": 2000,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "496-97"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/194/0493-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "248 N.E.2d 89",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 Ill. 2d 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2848137
      ],
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/42/0542-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "750 N.E.2d 282",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "289"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 Ill. App. 3d 310",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        126346
      ],
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "315-16"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/322/0310-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 431,
    "char_count": 6133,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.07686896031390247
    },
    "sha256": "5c17a516df9857526e8be66c294c3724764f24077c416c6af457950f1983e97d",
    "simhash": "1:8f8e365f0a02d6f1",
    "word_count": 981
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:11:21.532369+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "TRUST No. 1105, Altorfer, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE PEOPLE ex rel. ROGER D. LITTLE, County Treasurer and ex officio County Collector of Taxes for Champaign County, Defendants (The City of Urbana, Defendant-Appellee)."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiffs, various landowners in Urbana, appeal the trial court\u2019s grant of summary judgment to defendant City of Urbana after plaintiffs filed objections to property taxes for tax year 1997. We affirm.\nIn November 1998, plaintiffs filed objections to property taxes levied for tax year 1997 by defendants, City of Urbana (Urbana), Community Unit School District No. 4, County of Champaign, and Cham-paign Township Road District. (The latter three defendants previously settled with plaintiffs and are not involved in the present appeal.) Plaintiffs alleged that defendants\u2019 1997 levies were unnecessary and an abuse of discretion.\nIn February 1999, plaintiffs and Urbana stipulated that Urbana had accumulated, in its Illinois Municipal Retirement Fund (retirement fund), assets equal to 2.42 times the retirement fund\u2019s expenditures for fiscal year 1996-97 and 2.42 times the retirement fund\u2019s average annual expenditures for fiscal years 1994-95, 1995-96, and 1996-97.\nIn June 2001, plaintiffs and Urbana each filed a motion for summary judgment. After a July 2001 hearing, the trial court denied plaintiffs\u2019 motion for summary judgment and granted Urbana\u2019s motion for summary judgment. This appeal followed.\nPlaintiffs initially urge us to overrule the portion of our decision in Alpha Gamma Rho Alumni v. People ex rel. Boylan, 322 Ill. App. 3d 310, 315-16, 750 N.E.2d 282, 289 (2001), which held that a home rule unit\u2019s tax levy is not subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion under Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. Miller, 42 Ill. 2d 542, 248 N.E.2d 89 (1969). Plaintiffs contend that court inquiry under Miller is sufficiently deferential to home rule units and that the public policy against excessive accumulation of public funds expressed in Miller, which predated the introduction of home rule in Illinois (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, \u00a7 6), applies equally to home rule units.\nWe are not persuaded by plaintiffs\u2019 arguments, and we reaffirm our holding in Alpha Gamma Rho Alumni. The Illinois Constitution of 1970 extends sovereign powers to home rule units, which possess the same powers as the state government, except where such powers are limited by the General Assembly. Johnson v. Halloran, 194 Ill. 2d 493, 496-97, 742 N.E.2d 741, 743 (2000). Thus, home rule abrogates the restrictions of Dillon\u2019s Rule of municipal law, under which a unit of local government is deemed to have only those powers that have been specifically granted to it by the sovereign. People ex rel. Bernardi v. City of Highland Park, 121 Ill. 2d 1, 11, 520 N.E.2d 316, 320 (1988), citing 1 J. Dillon, Municipal Corporations \u00a7 237, at 448-49 (5th ed. 1911). Accordingly, Urbana\u2019s tax levy is not subject to judicial review for abuse of discretion under Miller.\nFurther, we reject plaintiffs\u2019 suggestion that judicial review under Miller is necessary to prevent abuses of taxing discretion by home rule units. Our supreme court has stated that it is for the General Assembly, under section 6(g) of article VII (Ill. Const. 1970, art. VII, \u00a7 6(g)), to consider possible abuses of home rule powers. Chicago Park District v. City of Chicago, 111 Ill. 2d 7, 17, 488 N.E.2d 968, 973 (1986). One commentator has stated:\n\u201cThe design of section 6 places great responsibility upon the legislature to ensure that home rule does not degenerate into provincialism which could injure the people of the state. ***\nIf the legislature does not perform its job, it is true that the people of the state may suffer ***. But if the constitutional design is to be respected, the courts should step in to compensate for legislative inaction or oversight only in the clearest cases of oppression, injustice, or interference by local ordinances with vital state policies.\u201d D. Baum, A Tentative Survey of Illinois Home Rule (Part I): Powers & Limitations, 1972 U. Ill. L.F. 137, 157 (1972).\nPlaintiffs do not contend that Urbana\u2019s tax levy was oppressive, and we decline to interfere in this case.\nPlaintiffs next assert that the trial court should have reviewed Urbana\u2019s 1997 retirement fund levy to determine whether it complied with section 7 \u2014 171(b)(1) of the Illinois Pension Code (Pension Code) (40 ILCS 5/7 \u2014 171(b)(1) (West 1996)), which provides, \u201cA municipality other than a school district may levy a tax which shall not exceed the amount appropriated for municipality contributions.\u201d Plaintiffs argue that section 7 \u2014 171(b)(1) limits Urbana\u2019s 1997 retirement fund levy because municipal retirement is a matter of statewide concern and Urbana willingly participates in the statewide municipal retirement program. We disagree.\nA statute enacted prior to the adoption of the Illinois Constitution of 1970 cannot restrict home rule taxing powers unless the General Assembly approves an amendment by a three-fifths majority of both houses that specifically expresses a restrictive purpose. City of Rockford v. Gill, 75 Ill. 2d 334, 341, 388 N.E.2d 384, 387 (1979). Section 7 \u2014 171 of the Pension Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1963, ch. 108\u00bd, par. 7 \u2014 171) was enacted prior to the 1970 Illinois Constitution, and nothing in the statute specifically expresses a purpose to restrict home rule taxing powers pursuant to section 6(g) of article VII of the Illinois Constitution of 1970. Therefore, the statutory limitation in section 7 \u2014 171 simply is inapplicable to Urbana, which is a home rule unit.\nBecause of our disposition of the above issues, we need not address plaintiffs\u2019 argument that Urbana failed to justify its levy.\nAccordingly, we affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nAffirmed.\nCOOK and APPLETON, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McCULLOUGH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mary Ann Royse (argued), of Harrington, Tock & Royse, of Champaign, for appellants.",
      "Jack Waaler (argued), City Attorney, of Urbana, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "TRUST No. 1105, Altorfer, Inc., et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE PEOPLE ex rel. ROGER D. LITTLE, County Treasurer and ex officio County Collector of Taxes for Champaign County, Defendants (The City of Urbana, Defendant-Appellee).\nFourth District\nNo. 4\u201401\u20140690\nArgued February 14, 2002.\nOpinion filed April 10, 2002.\nMary Ann Royse (argued), of Harrington, Tock & Royse, of Champaign, for appellants.\nJack Waaler (argued), City Attorney, of Urbana, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1033-01",
  "first_page_order": 1051,
  "last_page_order": 1054
}