Brown v. Grosskopf
984 N.E.2d 1167
Ill. App. Ct.2013Background
- Brown filed a declaratory judgment action to determine if the Livingston County State’s Attorney’s office is a “public body” under FOIA §2(a).
- Grosskopf had earlier requested documents related to a 2001 murder trial; Brown denied the request, prompting an appeal to the Assistant Public Access Counselor who issued a March 2011 advisory that Brown’s office must disclose subject to redactions.
- Grosskopf counterclaimed for declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce the advisory opinion.
- Madigan moved to dismiss under 735 ILCS 5/2-615, arguing there was no actual controversy and the advisory opinion was nonbinding.
- The trial court dismissed Brown’s complaint with prejudice, finding Brown’s office is a FOIA public body and that the advisory letter created an actual controversy, which the appellate court later affirmed for lack of a ripe controversy and standing rather than addressing the merits.
- The appellate court held there was no actual controversy or standing to support declaratory relief, and did not render a decision on whether the SAO is a “public body” under FOIA.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is an actual controversy/standing for declaratory relief | Brown asserts a live dispute over FOIA status of the SAO. | Advisory opinion is nonbinding; no ripe controversy existed. | No actual controversy or standing; dismissal affirmed. |
| Whether the SAO is a FOIA 'public body' ripe for adjudication | SAO should be considered a public body under FOIA based on the complaint. | Advisor letter is nonbinding; issue not ripe for judicial determination. | Not ripe for adjudication; court did not decide the merits. |
| Effect and enforceability of the assistant Public Access Counselor’s advisory opinion | Advisory opinion binds or informs the court’s decision. | Advisory opinion is nonbinding and nonreviewable. | Advisory opinion is nonbinding and nonreviewable; cannot form basis of suit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Village of Chatham, Illinois v. County of Sangamon, 216 Ill. 2d 402 (2005) (actual controversy and standing requirements for declaratory judgments)
- Greer v. Illinois Housing Development Authority, 122 Ill. 2d 462 (1988) (standing and adversity in declaratory actions)
- Underground Contractors Ass’n v. City of Chicago, 66 Ill. 2d 371 (1977) (definition of 'interested' party in declaratory relief)
- State v. Superior Court, 229 Cal. Rptr. 74 (Cal. Ct. App. 1986) (advisory opinions vs. binding positions of attorney general)
- Vitro v. Mihelcic, 209 Ill. 2d 76 (2004) (standard for de novo review of 2-615 dismissals)