Court Finds Appeal of Dismissal of FOIA Lawsuit Frivolous and more...

Court Finds Appeal of Dismissal of FOIA Lawsuit Frivolous

An Illinois Appellate Court ruled in favor of a public body in a FOIA lawsuit, finding the appeal frivolous in Tidwell v. Illinois Department of Corrections.

A requester submitted a request to the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) seeking the names of all medical personnel. IDOC denied the request, citing to a FOIA exemption that expressly exempts from release records requested by persons committed to the DOC or a county jail that include staff members' personnel files, staff rosters, or other staffing assignment information. The requester filed a lawsuit against IDOC. The circuit court dismissed his lawsuit, ruling in favor of IDOC. He then appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court.

The Appellate Court upheld the circuit court's dismissal of his lawsuit, finding that his appeal of the circuit court's decision was frivolous because he was aware of the specific exemption that prevented the disclosure of the information he requested.

City Did Not Violate FOIA in Denying Request for Records Maintained by Another Public Body

In response to a FOIA request seeking a court docket for a specific case, a city responded that it did not have any responsive records in its possession or custody, and directed the requester to contact the agency most likely to have responsive records (the county court system). After the requester sued the city alleging FOIA violations, the circuit court ruled in favor of the city, finding that the city did not violate FOIA when it did not produce records that were not in its possession.

After the requester appealed, an Illinois Appellate Court upheld the circuit court’s ruling in favor of the city. Tidwell v. City of Alton. The Appellate Court rejected the requester’s argument that the city could obtain the sought records by downloading them (from another agency’s website) and providing them to the requester, because FOIA does not require a public body to turn over records that the public body does not have and does not normally retain. Because a public body cannot improperly withhold records that it does not maintain, the Appellate Court determined that the city did not violate FOIA in response to the request.

Post Authored by Eugene Bolotnikov, Ancel Glink

No Violation of FOIA Where Records Not in Possession of Responding Public Body

An Illinois Appellate Court rejected an inmate's claims in a FOIA lawsuit against a sheriff's department in King v. Livingston County Sheriff's Office.

An inmate filed a FOIA request with a sheriff's office seeking records pertaining to racial profiling by a specific police officer. The sheriff's office responded that it had no responsive records because the officer was not employed by the sheriff's office but a city police department. The inmate sued, and the circuit court ruled in favor of the sheriff's office. On appeal, the Appellate Court also found no violation of FOIA in the sheriff's office's response, holding that the "nonexistence of requested documents is a cognizable affirmative defense" to a FOIA claim. In this case, the sheriff's office was not in possession of the requested record at the time of the request, so there was no FOIA violation in its response to the inmate's request.

Governor Signs Bill Requiring Libraries and Other Facilities to Post Suicide Hotline (9-8-8) Information

On August 7, 2026, Governor Pritzker signed Public Act 104-0808 into law, also referred to as Tammurra's Act (Act). The Act applies to various facilities and institutions, including libraries established under the Local Library Act and Public Library District Act of 1991, county shelter care homes, public institutions of higher education, and licensed day care centers. The Act takes effect on January 1, 2027.

The Act requires that contact information for the 9-8-8 National Suicide Prevention Lifeline be posted in these facilities “in a prominent location that is visible to and accessible by” patrons and users. The 9-8-8 Lifeline is a free, nationwide resource administered by the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the federal government (SAMHSA). While the Act does not specify what contact information must be posted, the 9-8-8 Lifeline allows individuals seeking assistance to call, text, or “chat” online.

The 9-8-8 Lifeline website (linked above) has many resources readers can consult, including FAQs, a glossary of terms, and information regarding services available to individuals. Notably, the website offers free print materials that include contact information for those seeking assistance.

Post Authored by Erin Monforti, Ancel Glink

• View comments • Track comments •

City Not Liable for Damages in Failed Sale of City Land

An Illinois Appellate Court upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit claiming a city was responsible for damages relating to a failed sale of city land because of alleged verbal promises of a city employee. Arroyo et al. v. City of Chicago.

According to the lawsuit, the city economic development coordinator met with a potential purchaser of property that was owned by the city. The city entered into a right of entry agreement allowing the potential purchaser to access the properties to conduct due diligence. However, the parties did not enter into a purchase and sale agreement for the sale of the property. The potential purchaser retained consultants to conduct investigations of soil and other conditions of the property. The potential purchaser claims that the city employee assured him that the city would sell the property to him, but when he was not provided with an appraisal by the city to complete the negotiations for the purchase, he filed a lawsuit seeking $500,000 in damages from the city for the investigations. The circuit court dismissed the case, and he appealed.

The Appellate Court upheld the dismissal. First, the Court held that there could be no "implied-in-fact contract" under a promissory estoppel theory because the city could not be bound by a contract that does not comply with legal requirements for a valid contract. Here, city ordinances provided that only the city council had the authority to sell city land, so any promises made by a city employee were void and unenforceable.

Second, it was not reasonable for the plaintiff to rely on assurances from a city employee who did not have actual authority to bind the city.

Third, the Court noted that verbal contracts for the sale of land are unenforceable.

Finally, the Court held that the right of entry agreement that the parties did enter into did not provide for compensation to the plaintiff for his due diligence efforts, which were conducted to benefit the plaintiff, and not the city.

Municipal Minute