Landmarks Preservation Council v. City of Chicago

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, although the defendants filed a cross-appeal, they were not required to do so to bring the standing issue before the reviewing court
• stating that plaintiff “has not contended that the ordinance was enacted in violation of constitutional guarantees of *** procedural due process”
• noting that it did not “meant ] to imply that any constitutional violation is readily apparent” merely from the fact that the city council allegedly departed from the procedural requirements in its municipal code in passing the challenged ordinance
• noting that it did not “mean[] to imply that any constitutional violation is readily apparent” merely from the fact that the city council allegedly departed from the procedural requirements in its municipal code in passing the challenged ordinance
• discussing the significance of the fact that the challenged action was legislative rather than administrative
• “findings of the circuit court adverse to the appellee do not require that the appellee cross-appeal if the judgment of the circuit court was not, at least in part, against him”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).