Hampton v. Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago
2015 IL App (1st) 132317
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Plaintiffs (multiple homeowners) sued the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago after July 2010 storms, alleging flooding and damage to private property caused by the District’s management of the waterways.
- Plaintiffs pleaded two counts: (1) damages under the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District Act and (2) a state constitutional takings/damages claim under Ill. Const. art. I, § 15.
- Trial court dismissed Count I but denied dismissal of the Illinois constitutional takings claim, rejecting the District’s contention that temporary flooding can never be a taking.
- The District sought interlocutory review under Ill. S. Ct. Rule 308 by asking whether Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States overruled People ex rel. Pratt v. Rosenfield (Pratt), which had held temporary flooding is not a taking.
- The appellate court limited review to that certified legal question (no factual findings) and addressed whether Pratt’s blanket rule survives Arkansas Game & Fish.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Arkansas Game & Fish overruled Illinois Supreme Court’s Pratt rule that temporary flooding can never be a taking | Pratt should not bar temporary-flooding takings; recent federal precedent allows temporary takings claims | Pratt remains controlling Illinois authority; temporary flooding is not a taking as a matter of law | Arkansas Game & Fish effectively overruled Pratt’s blanket rule; temporary flooding is not categorically exempt and must be assessed on the facts |
| Whether the appellate court should resolve factual distinctions (e.g., intent) in the Rule 308 appeal | Plaintiffs: factual issues are for later proceedings; the certified question is purely legal | District: factual distinctions matter to applicability of Arkansas Game & Fish | Court declined to reach factual issues under Rule 308 and answered only the legal question presented |
Key Cases Cited
- People ex rel. Pratt v. Rosenfield, 399 Ill. 247 (Ill. 1948) (held temporary flooding does not constitute a taking)
- Arkansas Game & Fish Comm'n v. United States, 133 S. Ct. 511 (U.S. 2012) (temporary government-induced flooding is not categorically exempt from Takings Clause analysis; duration and other factors matter)
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (U.S. 1987) (temporary regulatory or physical invasions can give rise to compensable takings)