County of Boone v. Plote Construction, Inc.
2017 IL App (2d) 160184
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Boone County (plaintiff) and defendants (Plote Construction, Belvidere Materials, Chicago Land Title & Trust) settled a 2005 zoning suit; settlement and later county Ordinance allowed quarrying with hours limited to 6:00 a.m.–6:00 p.m. weekdays/Saturdays and no Sundays/holidays unless the county permitted less restrictive hours to another operator ("least restrictive hours" clause).
- In August 2014 county inspector Drew Bliss observed what he described as "quarrying activity" outside permitted hours (loading/hauling), and the county sought injunctive relief; the trial court issued an injunctive order in November 2014 after a noticed hearing, but the written memorandum did not recite the specific acts enjoined.
- Defendants defended on the basis that the settlement’s "least restrictive hours" applied (because another quarry had broader hours) and later asserted the November 2014 order had expired as a TRO.
- In June 2015 Bliss made further observations of trucks being loaded and weighed before 6 a.m.; the county filed a petition for a rule to show cause for indirect civil contempt based on those June observations.
- The trial court found the June 2015 loading/hauling constituted "quarrying activities," held defendants in indirect civil contempt, and imposed monetary sanctions; defendants appealed, arguing the injunction had lapsed and, alternatively, that their conduct did not violate the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defendants waived challenge to the Nov. 2014 injunctive order by not immediately appealing | County: failure to appeal did not bar later review | Defendants: order became law of the case if not immediately appealed | Court: Rule 307 is permissive; failure to appeal did not bar review (Anderson/Salsitz) |
| Whether the Nov. 2014 injunction expired before June 2015 conduct | County: order issued after notice and hearing; functions as preliminary injunction and did not expire | Defendants: it was a TRO that lapsed (10-day limit) absent prompt hearing | Court: order followed notice and hearing so Jurco 10-day rule for summary TROs does not apply; order remained in effect |
| Whether the injunctive order was sufficiently specific to support contempt | County: oral rulings + written memorandum constituted the order | Defendants: written memorandum did not describe acts with required specificity under §11-101 | Court: defendants failed to provide report of proceedings for oral rulings; resolve gaps against appellants and reject specificity challenge |
| Whether loading/hauling observed in June 2015 violated the injunction | County: Bliss’s observations of loading, weighing, and trucks entering/exiting were "quarrying activities" prohibited outside hours | Defendants: loading trucks is not "quarrying activity" as defined by ordinance | Court: cannot reach merits because record lacks the November 13 oral ruling; resolve doubt against defendants and affirm contempt finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. Financial Matters, Inc., 285 Ill. App. 3d 123 (interpreting Rule 307 permissively)
- Salsitz v. Kreiss, 198 Ill. 2d 1 (superseding contrary line and adopting Anderson on Rule 307)
- Jurco v. Stuart, 110 Ill. App. 3d 405 (10-day rule for TROs issued without hearing)
- Kable Printing Co. v. Mount Morris Bookbinders Union Local 65-B, 63 Ill. 2d 514 (notice/hearing distinction between TRO and preliminary injunction)
- People ex rel. City of Chicago v. Le Mirage, Inc., 2013 IL 113482 (injunction specificity requirement for contempt)
- Mister v. A.R.K. Partnership, 197 Ill. App. 3d 105 (distinguishing TRO, preliminary, permanent injunctions)