City of Chicago v. James E. Mulligan Enterprises, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “The statute does not say that notice is a condition precedent to suit,” and fact that the owner was aware of the suit gave her the requisite notice of the city’s intentions
• section 11— 31 — 1 for use in urgent situations
• the city “proceeded far more leisurely than the urgency of the statute contemplated” where it waited 14 months following the defendant’s answer to its complaint before it sought the demolition of the property at issue, which had been ravaged by a fire and left unrepaired
• in a demolition action under a previous version of the law at issue here, similar law banning repairs on buildings more than 50% destroyed “offer[ed] additional support for the legislative intention as to the city’s power to take action with respect to” the building at issue
• the city \proceeded far more leisurely than the urgency of the statute contemplated\ where it waited 14 months following the defendant's answer to its complaint before it sought the demolition of the property at issue, which had been ravaged by a fire and left unrepaired
• in a demolition action under a previous version of the law at issue here, similar law banning repairs on buildings more than 50% destroyed \offer[ed] additional support for the legislative intention as to the city's power to take action with respect to\ the building at issue

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).