City of Chicago v. Latronica Asphalt and Grading, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the MCC required the City to “institute necessary proceedings to prosecute violations” and “to compel the prevention and abatement of . . . pollution . . . and nuisances arising therefrom.”
• applying nullum tempus to remedy “illegal dumping of waste” on a public lot, which could “create a danger to the public health”
• refusing to address the merits of the defendant’s section 2-615 motion to dismiss because “it was never addressed or even ruled on by the trial court in reaching its decision”
• refusing to address the merits of the defendant’s section 2- 615 motion to dismiss because “it was never addressed or even ruled on by the trial court in reaching its decision”
• denying motion to dismiss where the City was not obligated to sue.
• city had purchased relevant site and so could and did undertake remediation

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).