Grassini v. Du Page Township

26 Citing cases

  1. Cannizzo v. Berwyn Township 708 Community

    318 Ill. App. 3d 478 (Ill. App. Ct. 2001)   Cited 21 times
    Holding "ultra vires and void ab initio" a contract because the defendant, an "appointed community mental health board, ... [did] not have the authority to enter into employment contracts with administrative personnel that extend[ed] beyond the term of the township supervisor holding office at the time the contract [was] executed"

    735 ILCS 5/2-619(a)(9) (West 1992). Thus, all well-pleaded facts in a complaint are taken as true. Grassini v. Du Page Township, 279 Ill. App.3d 614, 618, 665 N.E.2d 860 (1996). The purpose of a section 2-619 motion to dismiss is to provide a mechanism to dispose of issues of law and easily proved issues of fact, and the cause of action should not be dismissed on the pleadings unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved which would entitle a plaintiff to recover.

  2. Village of Oak v. Faber

    378 Ill. App. 3d 458 (Ill. App. Ct. 2007)   Cited 10 times
    Noting that the legislature codified the Millikin rule in section 8-1-7(b) of the Municipal Code by authorizing municipalities to " β€˜make contracts for a term exceeding one year and not exceeding the term of the mayor or president holding office at the time the contract is executed’ " (quoting 65 ILCS 5/8-1-7(b) (West 2004))

    " Milliken, 142 Ill. at 532-33, 32 N.E. at 494.Milliken has been invoked in the more recent cases of Grassini v. Du Page Township, 279 Ill. App. 3d 614, 665 N.E.2d 860 (1996), and Cannizzo v. Berwyn Township 708 Community Mental Health Board, 318 Ill. App. 3d 478, 741 N.E.2d 1067 (2000), and Oak Lawn additionally looks to these decisions to support its position that Faber's employment agreements are void. In Grassini, plaintiff entered into an employment contract with Du Page Township to serve in the capacity of township administrator for a four-year period.

  3. Cooper v. Nameoki Twp.

    Case No. 14-cv-634-SMY-DGW (S.D. Ill. Nov. 12, 2014)   Cited 2 times

    As to Plaintiffs' breach of contract claims, the Court notes that the Illinois Township Code does not permit township boards to execute employment contracts which extend beyond the board members' terms of office. Grassini v. DuPage Twp., 665 N.E.2d 860, 865-66 (1996). Under Grassini, there must be read "an implied term into the manual by which a succeeding board could terminate [the plaintiff's] employment in the exercise of its authority under section 100-5 (60 ILCS 1/100-5(a) (West Supp.1996)). 665 N.E.2d at 866.

  4. Trombetta v. Board of Education

    No. 02 C 5895 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 13, 2003)

    1930 WL 2992, at *3. In Grassini v. DuPage Township, 279 Ill. App.3d 614, 665 N.E.2d 860 (1996), the court considered a township administrator's four year employment contract that had been approved by the township board of trustees entered into an employment contract with the plaintiff to serve as the township administrator for a four-year period. When a new board of trustees was appointed, it voted to terminate the plaintiff's contract, and the plaintiff filed suit.

  5. Barwin v. Vill. of Oak Park

    54 F.4th 443 (7th Cir. 2022)   Cited 26 times
    Applying Illinois law

    R. 145 at 9–10. See Grassini v. DuPage Twp. , 279 Ill.App.3d 614, 216 Ill.Dec. 602, 665 N.E.2d 860, 864–65 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (deeming four-year contract for employment of township administrator void ab initio because the term of the contract extended beyond term of township board and supervisor who approved it). The court added that although Barwin pointed to Village President Pope's oral assurances at the time of his hiring that the Village had allowed Barwin's predecessor to purchase out-of-state pension credits and that Barwin would be permitted to do the same if the need arose, the agreement's integration clause prevented the court from considering any such promise or representation.

  6. Roth v. Yingling

    No. 10 C 64 (N.D. Ill. Jul. 8, 2010)

    Ever since Millikan v. County of Edgar, 32 N.E. 493 (Ill. 1892), Illinois courts have consistently held that "it is contrary to the effective administration of a political subdivision to allow elected officials to tie the hands of their successors with respect to decisions regarding the welfare of the subdivision." Cannizzo v. Berwyn Twp. 708 Cmty. Mental Health Bd., 741 N.E.2d 1067, 1071 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000) (explaining Millikan); see also Grassini v. DuPage Twp., 665 N.E.2d 860, 864 (Ill. App. Ct. 1996) (same). In Millikan, an elected county board of supervisors, who served one-year terms, hired a keeper of a poor house for an ostensible three-year term.

  7. 1550 MP Rd. LLC v. Teamsters Local Union No. 700

    2019 IL 123046 (Ill. 2019)   Cited 23 times
    In 1550 MP Road LLC v. Teamsters Local Union No. 700, 2019 IL 123046, ΒΆ 28, our supreme court held that a contract entered into by a labor union was unenforceable where the union had failed, as a condition of its authority, to obtain its members' approval prior to entering into the agreement.

    For example, where a municipality exceeds its statutory authority in entering into a contract, the municipality's act is ultra vires , and the resulting contract is void ab initio . See, e.g. , Grassini v. DuPage Township , 279 Ill. App. 3d 614, 620, 216 Ill.Dec. 602, 665 N.E.2d 860 (1996) ; Nielsen-Massey Vanillas, Inc. v. City of Waukegan , 276 Ill. App. 3d 146, 152-53, 212 Ill.Dec. 856, 657 N.E.2d 1201 (1995). "[A] contract that is void ab initio is treated as though it never existed; neither party can choose to ratify the contract by simply waiving its right to assert the defect."

  8. Am. Util. Auditors, Inc. v. Vill. of Univ. Park

    2019 Ill. App. 2d 180452 (Ill. App. Ct. 2019)

    AmAudit cites various cases that comment on the rationale behind section 8-1-7(b), which was to prevent elected officials from tying the hands of their successors regarding certain employment decisions. See Cannizzo v. Berywn Township 708 Community Health Board, 318 Ill. App. 3d 478, 483-84 (2000); Grassini v. Du Page Township, 279 Ill. App. 3d 614, 619-20 (2000). Second, AmAudit argues that the contract does not violate section 8-1-7(b) because it does not require the Village to continue to employ AmAudit or continue to utilize its auditing services.

  9. Harris v. Eckersall

    331 Ill. App. 3d 930 (Ill. App. Ct. 2002)   Cited 20 times
    Indicating that employees working for a township assessor are at will employees

    A township may exercise only those powers conferred upon it by statute. Grassini v. Du Page Township, 279 Ill. App. 3d 614, 618, 665 N.E.2d 860, 863 (1996). Any employment agreement between plaintiff and the Township, similar to other types of unauthorized agreements, would have been void ab initio.

  10. Crull v. Sunderman

    384 F.3d 453 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 62 times
    Listing state authorities

    Applying the rule to municipalities, the court in Cannizzo held that an elected board did not have authority to employ persons in positions that were important to the effective administration of the board beyond its term. See id.; see also Grassini v. DuPage Township, 279 Ill.App.3d 614, 216 Ill.Dec. 602, 665 N.E.2d 860 (1996). Because the board in Cannizzo used staggered appointments, the length of time used to measure or limit the board's power was the term of the elected official appointing the board.