Nussbaum Trucking Co. v. Conley

3 Citing cases

  1. R.L. Polk Co. v. Ryan

    296 Ill. App. 3d 132 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998)   Cited 32 times
    In Polk, the court held generally, as it pertained to the facts of that case, that (1) the Illinois Secretary of State had discretionary authority to adopt the rule in question, (2) the rule was sufficiently precise to satisfy the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act (Act) (5 ILCS 100/1-1 et seq. (West 1996)), and (3) the rule was adopted in compliance with the Act.

    The grant or denial of a declaratory judgment is a matter of the court's discretion, and the declaratory judgment will not be disturbed unless the record shows an abuse of discretion. Nussbaum Trucking Co. v. Conley, 236 Ill. App.3d 809, 811, 602 N.E.2d 982, 983 (1992). "In cases involving declaratory judgment actions, the trial court's exercise of discretion is not given the same deference as in other proceedings, and the appellate court is given a greater latitude in reviewing a declaratory judgment issued by a trial court."

  2. Board of Regents v. Reynard

    292 Ill. App. 3d 968 (Ill. App. Ct. 1997)   Cited 10 times
    Finding Athletic Council of Illinois State University to be a public body which must comply with the Open Meetings Act and FOIA

    The decision of the trial court to grant or deny declaratory relief is within its sound discretion and will not be disturbed on review absent an abuse of that discretion. Nussbaum Trucking Co. v. Conley, 236 Ill. App.3d 809, 811, 602 N.E.2d 982, 983 (1992). The definition of "public body" is very similar in the Act and the FOIA.

  3. McDonald's Corp. v. First National Bank

    252 Ill. App. 3d 806 (Ill. App. Ct. 1993)   Cited 1 times
    In McDonald's, the issue was whether the trial court had correctly ruled that a contract between the plaintiff and one of the defendants unambiguously prevented that defendant from erecting a sign on its property.

    In conclusion, we find that the parties' contracts do not provide any explicit and unambiguous limit on the number of pylon signs allowed at the shopping center. Given that conclusion, plus the general rule of construction that weighs against imposition of a limitation on the free use of property, where the use in question is not explicitly prohibited (see Lake Barrington, 196 Ill. App.3d at 283), we find that the trial court's order of declaratory relief favoring McDonald's and against the Developer was an abuse of its discretion (see Nussbaum Trucking Co. v. Conley (1992), 236 Ill. App.3d 809, 811). We find that although the Declaration reveals an unambiguous intent by the parties to insure the fulfillment of their earlier agreements regarding two pylon signs, it does not eliminate the possibility of additional pylon signs — although it provides McDonald's a right to timely expression of reasonable objections.