"Cases Pending" Highlights Civil Cases to be Heard During Illinois Supreme Court's January Term

The Illinois Supreme Court's January Term will begin on Monday, January 14, 2019. The term will include oral argument in 7 civil cases and 6 criminal cases between January 15 and January 24. Below is a listing of the 7 civil cases that will be heard:


Wednesday, January 16, 2018:


Fillmore v. Taylor, No. 122626


Wednesday January 23, 2019:


Van Dyke v. White, No. 121452


People of the State of Illinois (County of Cook) v. Illinois Pollution Control Board, Nos. 122798, 122813 (cons.)


LMP Services v. City of Chicago, No. 123123


Doe v. Coe, No. 123521


Thursday January 24, 2019:


Roberts v. Board of Trustees of Community College District No. 508, No. 123594


McCarthy v. Abraham Lincoln Reynolds Living Trust, No. 123622


Below is a summary of one of the civil cases to be argued. As always, more information about all pending criminal and civil cases is available in the ALA's Cases Pending newsletter.


LMP Services v. City of Chicago

In 2012, the City of Chicago passed an ordinance governing the operations of food truck vendors in the city limits. Among other things, the ordinance contained two provisions at issue on appeal. First, it provided that food truck vendors could not operate within 200 feet of a restaurant entrance. Second, it provided that food trucks must install a GPS device for purposes of locating a food truck in the event of a food borne illness outbreak or similar public health event.


LMP Services, a food truck vendor doing business as Cupcakes for Courage, challenged the ordinance as violating her substantive due process rights under the Illinois Constitution because it was an economic protectionist provision intended to benefit owners of brick-and-mortar restaurants at the expense of food truck vendors, and prevented her from pursuing her livelihood. She further challenged the GPS device requirement as an illegal search. The circuit court held that 200-foot rule was an appropriate exercise of the City’s police power and balanced the interests of restaurants and food truck vendors. It further held that the GPS requirement was not a search, but was an appropriate condition of licensure.


The First District Appellate Court affirmed, specifically holding that the government is entitled to consider the relative amount of property taxes paid by each economic group when drafting legislation. It further held that requiring the installation of a GPS device was not a search because the government did not surreptitiously install the device, but rather, it required the food truck owners to install the device.


In its petition for leave to appeal, LMP Services argued that the appellate court relied on inapposite case law in reaching its holding. LMP Services also argued that the appellate court erred in holding that the GPS device was not a search.


DISCLAIMER: The Appellate Lawyers Association does not provide legal services or legal advice. Discussions of legal principles and authority, including, but not limited to, constitutional provisions, statutes, legislative enactments, court rules, case law, and common-law doctrines are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.