Roxana Community Unit School District No. 1 v. WRB Refining
2012 IL App (4th) 120331
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs are Madison County taxing districts that rely on WRB Refining as a major property taxpayer.
- WRB sought pollution-control-facility treatment for about $3 billion of refinery improvements under 11-5 of the Property Tax Code; EPA evaluated applications and PCB would certify.
- Plaintiffs alleged PCB proceedings violated Open Meetings Act and Environmental Protection Act due to closed meetings and other procedural flaws.
- Plaintiffs sought intervention and filed for declaratory and injunctive relief; PCB proceedings involved 28 intervenor petitions in which petitions were denied.
- In March 2012, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction under section 3(c) of the Open Meetings Act barring PCB meetings concerning the named plaintiffs and WRB pending merits.
- WRB appealed, arguing the injunction was too narrow and should not apply to all PCB meetings; the appellate court modified the injunction to cover all PCB meetings pending merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Verification requirement for injunctions | WRB argues pleadings must be verified. | WRB contends unverified pleadings invalid for injunction. | Verification not required when notice is given; injunction upheld. |
| Whether the Open Meetings Act exception applies | Open Meetings Act warrants relief where statute authorizes injunctions. | General preliminary-injunction standards apply, not statutory exception. | Open Meetings Act exception applies; injunctive relief authorized. |
| Scope of the injunction | Injunction protects public interest against violations in PCB proceedings. | Limiting to meetings involving named parties is appropriate. | Injunction should extend to all PCB meetings pending merits. |
| Authority to enjoin all PCB meetings | Trial court can bar future violations of the Open Meetings Act. | Authority limited to meetings related to plaintiffs and WRB. | Court has authority to enjoin all PCB meetings likely to violate the Act. |
Key Cases Cited
- Postma v. Jack Brown Buick, Inc., 157 Ill. 2d 391 (Ill. 1993) (injunctions may be authorized by statute for public interests)
- Keeven, 68 Ill. App. 3d 91 (Ill. App. 3d 1979) (limited pleading requirements where statutory injunctive relief exists)
- Lindsey v. Board of Education of the City of Chicago, 127 Ill. App. 3d 413 (Ill. App. 1984) (preliminary injunction standards and statutory context)
- Oscar George Electric Co. v. Metropolitan Fair & Exposition Authority, 104 Ill. App. 3d 957 (Ill. App. 1982) (balancing factors in injunction decisions with public interests)
- Hough v. Weber, 202 Ill. App. 3d 674 (Ill. App. 1990) (verification and notice considerations in preliminary relief)
- Keeven, People v. Keeven, 68 Ill. App. 3d 91 (Ill. App. 1979) (analysis of injunctive relief provided by statute)
- Regional Transportation Authority v. Burlington Northern Inc., 100 Ill. App. 3d 779 (Ill. App. 1981) (injunction standards in regulatory open-meetings context)
- Clinton Landfill, Inc. v. Mahomet Valley Water Authority, 406 Ill. App. 3d 374 (Ill. App. 2010) (exceptional showing for preliminary injunctions)
- Postma v. Jack Brown Buick, Inc., 157 Ill. 2d 391 (Ill. 1993) (injunctions may be authorized by statute for public interests)