Underwood v. City of Chicago
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
2023 IL App (1st) 211317 SIXTH DIVISION December 1, 2023 No. 1-21-1317 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIRST DISTRICT MICHAEL W. UNDERWOOD, JOSEPH M. ) VUICH, RAYMOND SCACCHITTI, ROBERT ) McNULTY, JOHN E. DORN, WILLIAM J. ) SELKE, JANIECE R. ARCHER, DENNIS ) MUSHOL, RICHARD AGUINAGA, JAMES ) SANDOW, CATHERINE A. SANDOW, ) MARIE JOHONSTON, and 337 NAMED ) PLAINTIFFS LISTED IN EXHIBIT 23 TO ) ∗ THE SIXTH AMENDED COMPLAINT, ) ) Plaintiffs-Appellants, ) ) v. ) ) THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal ) Corporation; TRUSTEES OF THE ) POLICEMEN’S ANNUITY AND ) BENEFIT FUND OF CHICAGO; ) TRUSTEES OF THE FIREMEN’S ) ANNUITY AND BENEFIT FUND OF ) CHICAGO; TRUSTEES OF THE MUNICIPAL) EMPLOYEES’ ANNUITY AND BENEFIT ) FUND OF CHICAGO; and TRUSTEES OF ) THE LABORERS’ AND RETIREMENT ) BOARD EMPLOYEES’ ANNUNITY AND ) BENEIFT FUND OF CHICAGO, ) ) Defendants ) ) (The City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, ) Defendant-Appellee). ) ∗ Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County. No. 13 CH 17450 The Honorable Neil H. Cohen, Judge, presiding. See the appendix to this opinion for a list of the 337 named plaintiffs listed in exhibit 23 to the sixth amended complaint. No. 1-21-1317 with opinion. PRESIDING JUSTICE ODEN JOHNSON delivered the judgment of the court, Justices C.A. Walker and Tailor concurred in the judgment and opinion. OPINION ¶1 The City of Chicago (City), a defendant and the sole appellee in this appeal, filed a motion in the trial court seeking an order dismissing the case against it with prejudice. The trial court granted the City’s motion on September 9, 2021. In its order, the trial court quoted Justice Mikva, who had written on behalf of a unanimous appellate court: “It is absolutely law of the case that the plaintiffs have no right to receive—and that neither the City nor the Funds have any obligation to provide—any additional monetary contributions or to guarantee affordable healthcare.” Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53 (Underwood III). Then-appellate court Justices Cunningham and Connors concurred. ¶2 On this appeal, the issue is whether the trial court erred in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims against the City seeking additional money and guarantees of health care. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm. ¶3 BACKGROUND ¶4 I. The Parties ¶5 Plaintiffs’ sixth amended complaint (complaint) is the most recent complaint filed in this action. It alleges that plaintiffs are 337 participants in one of the four pension funds named as defendants. In Underwood III, this court described plaintiffs as follows: “Plaintiffs in the present action are past or present City employees who alleged improper diminution of pension benefits under the Illinois Constitution, breach of contract, estoppel, impairment of contract, and denial of equal protection.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 14. 2 No. 1-21-1317 ¶6 Underwood III observed that the City, the sole defendant in the present appeal, 1 is an entity that had “provided its retirees with fixed-rate healthcare subsidies funded by city taxes.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. However, in 1987, “the City announced that it would stop providing the subsidies,” and this was the start of the legal troubles that eventually led to the present suit. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 9. ¶7 Regarding the four funds who are defendants but not appellees, this court has observed: “The General Assembly created four pension funds for City employees in order to administer and carry out the provisions of the Illinois Pension Code: (1) the Policemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund (Police Fund), (2) the Firemen’s Annuity and Benefit Fund (Fire Fund), (3) the Municipal Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund (Municipal Fund), and (4) the Laborers’ and Retirement Board Employees’ Annuity and Benefit Fund (Laborers’ Fund) (collectively, Funds).” Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 3 (Underwood I). The taxpayers of the City finance the funds’ obligations “through a tax levy.” Underwood I, 2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 3. According to appellants, litigation continues in the trial court over claims against the four funds. ¶8 ¶9 II. The 1983 and 1985 Subsidies In 1983, the City agreed to provide fixed-rate health care subsidies to retired Chicago police officers and firefighters. Subsequently, the Illinois Pension Code was amended to Plaintiffs represent in their brief to this court that litigation continues in the circuit court concerning claims against the funds. As described below in paragraph 26, the trial court granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, in part, finding that the funds had a statutory obligation under the 1983 and 1985 amendments to contract with one or more carriers to provide group health insurance for all eligible annuitants. This issue is not before us on this appeal. 1 3 No. 1-21-1317 include these subsidies. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7 (citing Pub. Act 821044, § 1 (eff. Jan. 12, 1983) (adding Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 108½, ¶ 6-164.2)). ¶ 10 In 1985, the Pension Code was further amended to include subsidies to retired municipal employees, laborers, and retirement board employees. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. ¶ 11 The 1983 and 1985 “legislation contemplated that each of the funds established for these employees”—namely, the four funds named as defendants here—“would contract with an insurance carrier to provide a healthcare plan for its retirees.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. The funds would then “use the monthly subsidies provided by the City toward the premiums for such coverage.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. If the premiums cost more than the subsidies, “the excess was to be deducted from a retiree’s monthly annuity,” unless the retiree renounced the coverage. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 7. ¶ 12 ¶ 13 III. The Korshak Litigation When the City announced in 1987 that it was going to stop paying these subsidies on January 1, 1988, it also filed a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment that it did not have to pay them, which became known as the “Korshak Litigation.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 9. ¶ 14 Before the merits of the Korshak litigation were decided, however, the City and the funds reached a settlement. This settlement was not a permanent solution but merely an interim measure, designed to give the parties more time to reach a more lasting solution. However, if they failed to reach such a solution at the end of 10 years, the settlement returned the parties to 4 No. 1-21-1317 the same legal status that they had had on October 19, 1987, when the litigation began. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 10. ¶ 15 Effective August 23, 1989, the Pension Code was amended, to include the terms of this first interim settlement, including a 10-year limit. In 1997, before the time limit in the first interim agreement expired, the parties reached a second interim agreement, which was set to expire on June 30, 2003. On April 4, 2003, the parties reached a final settlement. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 10-12. ¶ 16 IV. The Underwood Litigation ¶ 17 On July 23, 2013, plaintiffs filed a new action against the City and the four funds, which is the present Underwood litigation. Underwood I, 2016 IL App (1st) 153613, ¶ 12. ¶ 18 Regarding the Underwood litigation, this court has observed that plaintiffs can be divided into “four subclasses: (1) those who retired before December 31, 1987 ***, (2) those who retired between January 1, 1988, and August 23, 1989 ***, (3) those who retired on or after August 23, 1989 ***, and (4) those who were hired after August 23, 1989.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 14. The claims of the first and second subclasses are “essentially moot as the parties have settled.” Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2017 IL App (1st) 162356, ¶ 46 (Underwood II). ¶ 19 With respect to the third and fourth subclasses, the significance of the date of August 23, 1989, is that this was the date on which the Pension Code was effectively amended to include the terms of the first interim agreement. See Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 10. ¶ 20 This court has previously found that plaintiffs cannot “state a claim for benefits based on the 1987, 1997, or 2003 amendments to the Pension Code because the settlements giving 5 No. 1-21-1317 rise to those amendments were stopgap measures providing only time-limited benefits.” See Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 15-16 (describing a prior trial court ruling that was affirmed in Underwood II); see also Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 46 (“In Underwood II, this court agreed with the circuit court that plaintiffs could not state a claim for coverage under the time-limited benefits provided for in the 1989, 1997, and 2003 settlements.”). This court has found that the 1983 and 1985 amendments to the Pension Code contained no time limits and that they “protected the right to a fixed-rate subsidy” but “not a particular quantum of buying power or level of healthcare services.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶¶ 15-16. The right to subsidies extended to those in the third subclass, as well as to those in the fourth subclass “who began participating before the 2003 settlement.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 16. ¶ 21 ¶ 22 V. Underwood II and III In Underwood II, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract, estoppel, impairment of contract, equal protection and violation of the special legislation clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. IV, § 13), leaving only issues under the pension clause (Ill. Const. 1970, art. XIII, § 5). ¶ 23 In Underwood III, which was the last time this suit was before the appellate court, we remanded the case back to the trial court so that the trial court could consider, in the first instance, “[w]hether the pension protection clause binds the [f]unds to create or approve a healthcare plan and administer it for the retirees’ benefit.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 50. As we noted above, litigation with respect to the funds is continuing and is separate and apart from this appeal, which concerns the City only. ¶ 24 In Underwood III, we answered the two certified questions as follows: 6 No. 1-21-1317 “(1) plaintiffs’ motion to compel each of the [f]unds to provide its annuitants with a healthcare plan was not barred by this court’s [prior] decision *** and (2) the eligibility cutoff for City employees entitled to receive the fixed-rate subsidies is June 30, 2003, the last day before the terms of the court-approved 2003 settlement were incorporated by legislative amendment into the Pension Code.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 62. ¶ 25 VI. This Appeal ¶ 26 On remand, the trial court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, in part, finding that the funds had a statutory obligation under the 1983 and 1985 amendments to contract with one or more carriers to provide group health insurance for all eligible annuitants.2 ¶ 27 However, the trial court further found that this obligation did not require the funds to pay subsidies in excess of those provided for in the 1983 and 1985 amendments for any group health insurance or group health plan. As noted above, these issues are not before us on this appeal. ¶ 28 The City moved for an order dismissing the claims against it. In an order granting summary judgment in favor of the City, the trial court quoted the “law of the case” language from Justice Mikva’s opinion that we quoted in our first paragraph above. Supra ¶ 1. The trial court then found: “it is now the law of the case that the only obligation the City has to the annuitants is to levy a tax sufficient to cover the subsidies provided for in the 1983 and 1985 amendments and then transfer the collected monies to the [f]unds. Plaintiffs do not This was the question that we indicated in Underwood II that the trial court should address “in the first instance.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. 2 7 No. 1-21-1317 allege, and do not contend, that the City has failed to levy the required tax or transfer the collected monies to the [f]unds.” The trial court further found that, since the City’s sole obligation to the annuitants is to levy the required tax and transfer the monies to the funds, and since there was no allegation that the City was failing in this obligation, the trial court granted summary judgment for the City on September 9, 2021. The trial court also observed that it had previously denied plaintiffs’ motion to file a seventh amended complaint. On October 8, 2021, a notice of appeal was filed in the circuit court, and after requests for extensions of time, this case became ready for our consideration. ¶ 29 ¶ 30 ANALYSIS On this appeal, plaintiffs challenge both the trial court’s denial of their motion to file a seventh amended complaint and the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. For the following reasons, we affirm. ¶ 31 ¶ 32 I. Motion to File Another Complaint Plaintiffs’ proposed seventh amended complaint would be their eighth complaint, if permitted, and plaintiffs argue that the trial court abused its discretion by not allowing them to file it. An abuse of discretion occurs when no reasonable person could take the view that the trial court took. Meier v. Ryan, 2023 IL App (1st) 211674, ¶ 8. In addition, a trial court’s decision to deny leave to file an amended complaint will not be disturbed on review absent a clear abuse of that discretion. Insurance Benefit Group, Inc. v. Guarantee Trust Life Insurance Co., 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 50. ¶ 33 The most important consideration is whether amendment would further the interests of justice. Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 51. Factors to consider include the 8 No. 1-21-1317 timeliness of the proposed amendment and whether plaintiffs had prior opportunities to amend. Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 51. In Insurance Benefit, for example, the appellate court stated that it could find no abuse where the “parties had already been litigating the matter for nearly five years” and where the facts underlying the causes of action had been known since the inception of the lawsuit. Insurance Benefit, 2017 IL App (1st) 162808, ¶ 53. In the case at bar, plaintiffs have been litigating for over 10 years, they have received permission six times before to file an amended complaint, and the basic facts underlying this suit have been known to them since their suit’s inception over a decade ago. Under these facts, any reviewing court would be hard pressed to find abuse. Thus, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying their motion to amend. ¶ 34 ¶ 35 II. Summary Judgment Plaintiffs appeal the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. Summary judgment is appropriate when the record, viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmovant, fails to establish a genuine issue of material fact, thereby entitling the moving party to judgment as a matter of law. Zurich American Insurance Co. v. Infrastructure Engineering, Inc., 2023 IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17; 735 ILCS 5/2-1005(c) (West 2022). Summary judgment may be an expeditious manner of disposing of a lawsuit, but it should be utilized only when the movant’s right to judgment is clear and free from doubt. Zurich, 2023 IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17. On appeal, a reviewing court considers de novo a trial court’s decision to grant summary judgment. Zurich, 2023 IL App (1st) 230147, ¶ 17. ¶ 36 On this appeal, plaintiffs limit their arguments to dismissal of their (1) contract and (2) estoppel claims. Thus, the dismissal of their statutory and constitutional claims, which they had made pursuant to the pension clause and the pension code, are not at issue. 9 No. 1-21-1317 ¶ 37 With respect to contract, they argue that the funds had a contract with the City as the insurer which plaintiffs can sue to enforce. With respect to estoppel, they argue that representatives of the City repeatedly told plaintiffs at benefit seminars that they had lifetime health care guarantees. Based on these claims, plaintiffs seek lifetime health care from the City. ¶ 38 The bottom line here is that plaintiffs continue to seek money and health care guarantees from the City, when this court has already found that they have “no right to receive” them from either the City or the four funds. Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. This court found: “It is absolutely law of the case that the plaintiffs have no right to receive— and that neither the City nor the Funds have any obligation to provide—any additional monetary contributions or to guarantee affordable healthcare.” Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. The words “absolutely” and “no right” are unusually strong, definitive, and unequivocal. See Underwood III, 2020 IL App (1st) 182180, ¶ 53. 3 Based on this strong and unequivocal finding by a fellow panel in this same case, we can find no error in the trial court’s grant of summary judgment here. In light of our affirmance of summary judgment, there is no need to consider whether a class action should have been certified against the City. ¶ 39 ¶ 40 CONCLUSION As citizens, we are grateful for plaintiffs’ service and empathize with plaintiffs’ desire for affordable health care, on the one hand, and on the other hand, we understand the City’s struggle to keep costs down in an era of declining population. However, the matter before us is a strictly legal one where the issues have already been decided by prior panels. To the extent Plaintiffs in their initial brief to this court criticized the trial court for treating Justice Simon’s decision in Underwood II as law of the case while failing to address the much stronger language to that effect in Underwood III—that the trial court had quoted in its summary judgment order. Plaintiffs’ initial brief cites Underwood III twice: once to note that the trial court was reversed in part and once to note that the Underwood III court was “wary of applying law of the case to bar matters not actually decided on their merits.” 3 10 No. 1-21-1317 that a different outcome is warranted, that is a matter for a higher court or the legislature. For the reasons already explained above, we affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of the City. ¶ 41 Affirmed. 11 No. 1-21-1317 ¶ 42 APPENDIX 1 Last Name 2 Abbey 3 Alongi 4 s 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ?O 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Anrlerson Anderson /\ndler Andruz, i Angelo Antal Augustine Azara Azza ro Baker Banahan Barreto Batti st ella Batt ist ella Bellavia Berman Bl~kf' Blanc Blanc Bobko Bolda Bonk Banke Borski Bot winski Boyle Breska Brockman Brosnan Cagney Caliendo C,imrlf'n 36 Campion 37 Canchola 38 Canchola 39 Capesius 40 Carlo 41 Carr lf irst Name I Leon Rosemarie Don,ild G. Michelle Robert Joseph J. Thomas Robert P. Lawrence John T. Donald J. Madelyn Dennis M. Nelson Irene C. John Ronald J. Barry r,,farion 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Ca rroll Cervenka Pa ul 8. Richard G. Chengary Ala n Cla ncy Pat rick M . Cla rk Jean ne Cla rke James R. Cla rke Pat ricia S. Clepp Kat hy so Cl isham Sr. Co le John E. Jon Co nlisk Ill James B. Co nrad Co nrad Susan M. Walter A. Co nsidine Joseph E. Co nway Carol J. Conwell Hugh Co rcoran Cowell John E. Raymond M.' Coyne Michael J. Cronk Virigina M. Cu nningham James J. Dalton Tom Danihel Danz! William Joseph M. Davis W illiamB. DeCola Sa lvatore L De Fran cisco Peter J. 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 Curt is E. Ka ren /\, John R. Dennis J. James R. Fred Anth ony E. JoAnne Lesli e Vict or J. Ellwood W. Pat rick Edward C. June G. P,it rir.k T. William E. Donna J. Robert A. Michael C. Patricia Elalne 12 DeFranza Dona ld DeGiulio DeGryse Devivo William James J. Dicks Kenneth Dickson Robert M. Dorich Dragon Gerald Dennis Drnek Dona ld Droba Gerard Drummond Richard L. Drust WayneW. Dubielak Ronald Rosalie No. 1-21-1317 -82 83 Dunn Dunn Sr. 122 Green 123 Gunn ell 124 Gutierrez 125 Gvozdenovich 126 Hagele 127 Hammermeist er 128 Hammermeist er 129 Harper 130 Harri ngton 131 Hartford 132 Hat zel 133 Hea ly 134 Hea ly 135 Heidemann 136 Heyden 137 Hopkins 138 Horkavy 139 Horn e 140 Hourihane 141 Hujar 142 Ippolito 143 Ippo lit o 144 lvanjack 145 Januszy k 146 Jazdyk 147 Jin 148 Johnson 149 Juli en 150 Kann 151 Ka rl 152 Keane 153 Kehoe 154 Keller, Jr. 155 Kelly 156 Kern 157 King 158 King 159 Klauba 160 Kleidon, Jr. 161 Kliner Terrence L. Lawrence J. 84 Durbak 85 Dyckman 86 Dyckman Andres 87 Dziedzic 88 Egan 89 Eichler 90 Eldridge 91 Engelsman 92 Eshoo 93 Evanish 94 Everett 95 Faragoi 96 Farrer 97 Fa ust 98 Ferriter 99 Ficke 100 Fields 101 Finlayson 102 Finlayson 103 Flanagan, Jr. 104 Flynn 105 Foley 106 Foran 107 Frank 108 Frederick 109 Frost 110 Fruin 111 Glowacki 112 Glynn-Johnson 113 Gneda 114 Gogli otti 115 Golczak 116 Golen 117 Golosinski 118 Gorski 119 Gottfried 120 Gould 121 Gray Dennis Barbara Louis William G. Thomas James Richard John C. Francis Da niel Thomas V. Gerald L. Robert John T. Thomas R. Robert M. Donna M. James R. Thomas J. Michael C. Janice John K. Al bert M. Art hur G. Barbara C. James E. Christi ne Mary Diane Antoinette Anthony William J. Casimer L. St even H. Alan J. David R. Curt is 13 Mary Donald L. George Ant hony Marvin JoAnne Connelly Raymond F. Juana J. Pat rick J. Joseph B. Joseph John Lawrence Fred G. Fran H. James T. Grego ry L. Ross Michael Richard A. Joseph C. Patricia Ant hony J. Donald Raymond Tony H. Harold F. Patricia Lou Vivian J. Joyce L. Carole L. James G. Fran k J. Francis George "St eve" Richard Walter Bennet Walter A. Donald C. No. 1-21-1317 -162 ,_ Kliner 163 Klodnicki 164 Knight 165 Kobel Helen Johin H. Eve lyn F. Rich ard 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 Kocur Kopbenhoefer Kosteris Kotowicz Kouchoukos Kozaritz Krupowicz Kwiatkowski Lambros Lampard Leracz Loft us Logan Lo renz Lotito Lucchesi Thomas M. Charl es Dimitri os James F. Andrew F. Johin A. Kenneth G. Robert P. Kathleen Marilyn C. Edmond James R. Patrick Johin G. James M. James Maderak Madigan Madsen Majeske Majeske Makowski Maley Manning Terry Raymond Theodore J. Albert R. Carol Karen A. M u riel M. Jen,nifer Maratto Mares Martin Massi McCann McCarthy McFadden McGivney Kathleen Achilles Patrick Joh n S. Kenneth J. George Robert J. Joh n M. McQuaid Midona Midona, Sr. Milam Michael J. Barbara A. Joseph A. Mary J. 202 Milazzo-Triggs 203 Miller 204 Miller 205 Minich 206 Mitkal 207 Mont edore 208 Morgan 209 Morgan, Jr. 210 Morley 211 Morse 212 M ost acchi o 213 Mueller 214 Munoz 215 Murphy 216 Murray 217 Nagle 218 Nakaguchi 219 Nauer 220 Nieckula 221 Nork 222 Nyhan 223 O'Connor 224 Oga rek 225 Olivieri 226 O'Malley 227 Onest o 228 O'Rei lly 229 O'Rourke 230 Oskielunas 231 Ott 232 Padar 233 Palmer 234 Paolello 235 Paoletti 236 Paoletti 237 238 Parizanski 239 Patt 240 Paulnitsky 241 Pemberton 14 Catherine James John F. John Victor Ronald P Charles E. Walt er J. Christine Robert C. Santo V. Joan Luis Marie Irene Michael M. Jeffery Jon An n M. Donald B. Cynt hia Charles Thomas P. Margaret Joseph Edwin Francis Philip Bernard James A. Adam B. RoyJ. James R. Ronald A. James Grayceanne James M . Pa ul Corinne Roland Pat rick M. No. 1-21-1317 242 Peron 243 Perovich 244 Pizzo 245 Poedtke 246 Poholik 247 Polerecky 248 Pontrelli 249 Ptak 250 Quinn 251 Quinn 252 Ratledge 253 Reiter 254 Ret zke 255 Reynolds 256 Rhoden 257 Rhoden 258 Rieck 259 Rimkus 260 Rini 261 Rio rdan 262 Rodgers 263 Rohloff 264 Roo ney Sr. 265 Roscich 266 Ross 267 Rowa n 268 Rowan 269 Rowan 270 Ruback 271 Rumsfeld 272 Rya n 273 Sappanos 274 Sarnowski 275 Sasso 276 Sca lise 277 Schrager 278 Schreiner 279 Schultz 280 Schwab 281 Schwartz Robert J. Vladim ir Angeline Ronald Peter F. Robert E. Darlene Theodore Robert F. Sylvia A. Robert D. Mark Gery Thomas A. Dawn Ralph Judit h Sta nley Vict or Ann Audrey Richard P. Pat rick F. Ant hony M. Kenn eth C. Karen Michael Richard Charles R. Alma David Thomas Ret . Sgt . Robert W. Kat hryn Ant hony J. DanielV. Angela M. Marshall A. John Gerald 15 282 Sebastian, Jr. 283 Seils 284 Selke 285 Seyfert 286 Seyfert 287 Shuman 288 Signoretti 289 Sloma 290 Sm it h 291 Smith 292 Sobczyk 293 Sowinski 294 Specht 295 Speda le 296 Spratt 297 St am pnick 298 St aszak 299 St einmeier 300 Strazzante 301 Suess 302 Sullivan 303 Sut or 304 Swiat kowski 305 Szparkowski 306 Szparkowski 307 Tapkowski 308 Terrance 309 Thulis 310 Tobuch 311 Tolley 312 Tomaska 313 Tracey 314 Troken 315 Utz 316 Ut z 317 Vit aioli 318 Vit aioli 319 Vogt 320 Vucko 321 Wagner RoyD. Richard C. Jerome C. Eugene H. Judith A. Bernard J. Robert Raymond T. Charles J. Deborah K. Jane Ronald Robert Dominic Doris Raymond L. Norbert Art hur M. Charles M . Robert Michael T. Yvon ne Da niel Debra Gary Roman Timot hy J. John Lawrence J. John F. Joseph A. Robert J. Eugene B. Charl es A. James J. Kathleen Paul Vince Ralph E. Patricia M. No. 1-21-1317 322 Webb 323 Webb 324 Weber 325 Wein er 326 Welninski 327 Whalen 328 White 329 White 330 W iberg 331 W inter 332 Wo lanski 333 Wo lfe 334 Woody 335 Yablong 336 You ng 337 Zolna 338 Zurawik 339 Zurawski James E. Laura M. Matthew E. Ben Anthony Thomas Michael Glenn L. Ralph Wayne A. Joyce A. John Joseph Lorraine Phil H. Phillip P. Clifford A. James E. James J. 16 No. 1-21-1317 Underwood v. City of Chicago, 2023 IL App (1st) 211317 Decision Under Review: Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County, No. 13-CH-17450; the Hon. Neil H. Cohen, Judge, presiding. Attorneys for Appellant: Clinton A. Krislov and Kenneth T. Goldstein, of Krislov & Associates, Ltd., of Chicago, for appellants. Attorneys for Appellee: Mary B. Richardson-Lowry, Corporation Counsel, of Chicago (Myriam Zreczny Kasper, Suzanne M. Loose, and Sara K. Hornstra, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee. 17
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
