Young v. Public Building Com

2 Citing cases

  1. O'Donnell v. Kusper

    602 F. Supp. 619 (N.D. Ill. 1985)   Cited 7 times
    In O'Donnell, a case which was not a class action, the court refused to add/substitute a new plaintiff who sought to be added/substituted for the original plaintiff whose claims were brought on behalf of the County and not on his own behalf because the new plaintiff also did not have standing to sue on behalf of the County and any claim brought on its own behalf would be a completely new cause of action.

    Based upon taxpayers' interest in public property, Illinois courts have generally allowed taxpayers to bring actions premised upon violations of state and local law. See Young v. Public Building Commission of St. Clair County, 5 Ill. App.3d 892, 284 N.E.2d 485, 487 (1st Dist. 1972). Thus, in the view of this court, Illinois courts would probably recognize the plaintiff's standing to bring an action based upon a violation of the statutory notice and competitive bidding requirements contained in ยง 1006.

  2. Wade v. Kramer

    121 Ill. App. 3d 377 (Ill. App. Ct. 1984)   Cited 5 times

    The supreme court affirmed the dismissal. In Young v. Public Building Com. (1972), 5 Ill. App.3d 892, 284 N.E.2d 485, the appellate court upheld the dismissal of a complaint for a temporary injunction prohibiting the demolition of the St. Clair County Courthouse. Plaintiffs alleged that the planned demolition was a violation of the public trust doctrine. Finally, in Clement v. Chicago Park District (1983), 96 Ill.2d 26, 449 N.E.2d 81, the supreme court affirmed the dismissal of a complaint seeking an injunction against the construction of a driving range in Jackson Park, which plaintiffs claimed was a violation of the public trust in which the park land was held.