Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

River Park, Inc. v. City of Highland Park

Illinois Supreme Court
703 N.E.2d 883 (Ill. 1998)


Facts

Spatz & Company and River Park, Inc. (plaintiffs) wanted to develop 162 acres of land in the City of Highland Park (the City) (defendant). The plaintiffs petitioned the City for a change in the zoning ordinance and approval of the development plans. In 1989, the City approved, pending the filing of the final engineering plans. The plaintiffs alleged that the City then purposefully delayed issuing the final approvals in order to force the plaintiffs into foreclosure so the City could buy the property at below market value. In 1993, the plaintiffs sued the City in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for violations of their constitutional due process rights. The court held that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate that their due process rights were violated and dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The plaintiffs appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, but the dismissal was affirmed. In 1994, the plaintiffs sued in Illinois circuit court for “(1) tortious interference with a business expectancy, (2) breach of an implied contract, and (3) abuse of governmental power.” The remaining counts were dismissed. The plaintiffs requested $50 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The City moved to dismiss the lawsuit on the ground that it was barred by res judicata. The trial court granted the motion. The appellate court overturned the dismissal, because the claims asserted in the state court were different than those asserted in the federal suit. The City appealed to the Supreme Court of Illinois.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (McMorrow, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 175,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.