{
  "id": 5383660,
  "name": "CARPENTERSVILLE READY MIX COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE VILLAGE OF CARPENTERSVILLE, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Carpentersville Ready Mix Co. v. Village of Carpentersville",
  "decision_date": "1976-06-30",
  "docket_number": "No. 75-272",
  "first_page": "840",
  "last_page": "842",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "39 Ill. App. 3d 840"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "61 Ill. 2d 544",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2965290
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "558"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/61/0544-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 432,
    "char_count": 6605,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.883,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.728108280744093e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4544604724059202
    },
    "sha256": "67b07b5ae04d6585e921a055e98c5190c3c53d9fb7ce208a86c8b4f44adee8bc",
    "simhash": "1:b3942943f3a99eed",
    "word_count": 1044
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:44:11.874495+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "CARPENTERSVILLE READY MIX COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE VILLAGE OF CARPENTERSVILLE, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE RECHENMACHER\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe issue presented here is whether the trial court erred in its judgment declaring that an ordinance enacted by the defendant, Village of Carpentersville (Village), which prohibited the operation of trucks, or vehicles weighing 8,000 pounds or more on the streets within a densely populated residential district, which is five blocks wide and six blocks long (\u201cprohibited area\u201d), was a valid and constitutional exercise of its police powers. The ordinance was enacted by the Village in 1974 pursuant to section 15 \u2014 316(c) of the Illinois Vehicle Code (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1973, ch. 95M, par. 15 \u2014 316(c)) which provides as follows:\n\u201cLocal authorities with respect to highways, under their jurisdiction may \u00b0 * \u00b0, by ordinance or resolution, prohibit the operation of trucks or other commercial vehicles, or may impose limitations as [to] the weight thereof, on designated highways, which prohibitions and limitations shall be designated by appropriate signs placed on such highways.\u201d\nThe prohibited area is the so-called \u201cOld Town\u201d part of the Village, with narrow streets, small lots and with many of the homes built close to the curbing or edge of the street. Other than one \u201clittle family grocery store\u201d in a converted residence the area is residential and has no vacant lots.\nThe plaintiffs are \u201csister corporations\u201d which have, since 1957, conducted a ready-mix concrete delivery business and a road construction business, respectively at their headquarters which are located in an industrial development immediately north of the prohibited area. Plaintiffs have operated their cement mixing delivery trucks and other heavy vehicles on a route through the said prohibited area when their destination was west of the Fox River and to the south and west portions of Kane County. There was testimony of diesel fumes, vibration, spilled concrete, dust and noise of motors and of shifting gears on street inclines caused by heavy vehicular traffic in the prohibited area. There was also testimony of hazards to children on sidewalks, damage to water and sewer lines and to residences, resulting from the vibration caused by heavy trucks, and of destruction of curbings and traffic signs by large trucks trying to malee turns at the corners of the narrow streets.\nThe Village engineer testified on behalf of the plaintiffs. He stated that he had submitted a report to the Village president and its trustees indicating that in his opinion no damage had occurred or was likely to occur to the streets in the prohibited area, and he therefore recommended that no load limit or restriction to road traffic be imposed in the prohibited area. The Villages police chief testified on plaintiffs\u2019 behalf that his review of accident reports in the prohibited area for the previous five years (since 1969) disclosed that there had been only one accident which involved a prohibited vehicle, and that based thereon the area was a low accident area. Plaintiffs\u2019 testimony further showed that the ordinance in question would compel about 44% of plaintiffs\u2019 vehicular traffic to travel an additional distance of not less than V\u00a1\u00ed miles from their headquarters east of the Fox River to cross a bridge over the F ox River to Illinois Route 31 in order to make deliveries or perform services southwest of their plant resulting in additional expense to plaintiffs.\nIn the order upholding the validity of the ordinance the trial court found that it was \u201cwithin the legislative discretion\u201d of the Village, and that its provisions \u201care not an unreasonable exercise of the police power.\u201d\nAn ordinance is presumed valid, and the burden of establishing invalidity rests upon those asserting it. (Mulligan v. Dunne, 61 Ill. 2d 544, 558.) Plaintiffs concede this but contend that the Village\u2019s failure to provide a reasonable alternative truck route through the prohibited area renders the ordinance an unreasonable exercise of the Village\u2019s police powers and therefore unconstitutional.\nWe conclude from our examination of the entire record that the plaintiffs did not carry their burden of overcoming the presumption of the validity of the ordinance. The trial court, after considering all of the evidence, found that the ordinance was not an unreasonable exercise of the Village\u2019s police power. The evidence showed that while, as to that portion of plaintiffs\u2019 vehicular traffic whose destination was to the south and west of the Fox River, plaintiffs would suffer some inconvenience and some expense, they nevertheless had available several alternative truck routes. In view of the relevant factors which obviously motivated the Board of Trustees to enact the ordinance, such as the desire to eliminate noises, fumes, vibrations and attendant hazards, among others, it is this court\u2019s opinion that the ordinance represented a reasonable and valid exercise of the Village\u2019s police power. The ordinance, therefore, clearly bears a real and substantial relationship to public health, safety, morals and general welfare. The testimony of the Village engineer and its police chief did not negate any of the factors which prompted enactment of the ordinance.\nWe note that plaintiffs set out in their brief that the ordinance is unconstitutional and therefore unenforceable because of vagueness. Their argument is that the listing of \u201cCottage Avenue between Main and Williams if extended,\u201d as one of the streets in the prohibited area is vague and might be intended to include the street on which plaintiffs\u2019 business is located. Our examination of the record makes it clear that the plaintiffs\u2019 apprehension has no justification and, in our opinion, this argument has no merit.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Kane County is therefore affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nT. J. MORAN, P. J., and DIXON, J., concur.\nThe ordinance exempts from its provisions fire, police or other emergency vehicles, school buses, and trucks making service calls or deliveries in such area.\nIn addition to plaintiffs, there are several other industrial plants and manufacturing companies located in the area immediately north of \u201cOld Town\u201d.\nFrom 1966 until the adoption of the ordinance here in question some of the streets in the prohibited area were designated as truck routes.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE RECHENMACHER"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kenneth E. Steffan, of West, Scheflow, Rydell & Steffan, of Elgin, for appellants.",
      "Richard W. Husted, of Elgin, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CARPENTERSVILLE READY MIX COMPANY et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE VILLAGE OF CARPENTERSVILLE, Defendant-Appellee.\nSecond District (2nd Division)\nNo. 75-272\nOpinion filed June 30, 1976.\nKenneth E. Steffan, of West, Scheflow, Rydell & Steffan, of Elgin, for appellants.\nRichard W. Husted, of Elgin, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0840-01",
  "first_page_order": 868,
  "last_page_order": 870
}