Parker v. Catholic Bishop
Citations
- 146 Ill. 158
- 34 N.E. 473
Syllabus
<p>1. Municipal corporation—powers in respect to streets and alleys— vacation. A municipal corporation holds the streets and alleys of the city in trust for the general public, and, by the statute, is given power to vacate the same whenever the public interest or convenience, in the exercise of a reasonable discretion, shall seem to such authority to require it.</p> <p>2. Same—power to vacate street. It can make no difference, as to the power of a city to vacate a street or alley, whether the fee remains in the city, reverts to the original dedicator, or passes by operation of law to the adjoining owners. Nor will the fact that the use of the alley or street passes to a private individual or corporation, necessarily render it an exercise of power for a private and not for a public purpose.</p> <p>3. Same—Viability for vacating street or alley. A party, to maintain an action at law or in equity for the improper vacation or closing of a street or alley, must show that he received special injury or damages, differing in kind from those affecting the general public. This is the gist of the right of private action, and to give one complaining any standing, either in equity or at law, must be alleged and shown.</p> <p>4. Same—damages for the vacation of street or alley. Discretion is vested in the municipal authorities to determine, in the first instance, whether the property in the near vicinity of the street or alley will or will not be damaged by the proposed vacation or closing of the street or alley. If they find that the property will be specially damaged by the proposed vacation or closing, they should proceed to ascertain and pay the same, as was done in Meyer v. Teutopolis, 131 Ill. 552. If they find that no damage will result to the property by their proposed action, they may, by ordinance passed in conformity with the statute, vacate or close such street or alley.</p> <p>5. It will be presumed that when property is damaged by the proposed vacation or closing of
Judges: Shore
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
24 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Bigelow v. BallerinoCalifornia Supreme Court· 1896-03-17· cited 31×
- Clemens v. Connecticut Mutual Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Missouri· 1904-07-16· cited 26×
- White v. Metropolitan West Side Elevated RailroadIllinois Supreme Court· 1894-11-27· cited 24×
- Department of Public Works & Buildings v. Butler Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1958-03-20· cited 23×
- People ex rel. Friend v. WieboldtIllinois Supreme Court· 1908-04-23· cited 20×
- People Ex Rel. Tyson v. KellyIllinois Supreme Court· 1942-03-16· cited 17×
- Mandell v. Board of Com'rs of Bernalillo CountyNew Mexico Supreme Court· 1940-01-19· cited 17×
- Hill v. KimballIllinois Supreme Court· 1915-10-27· cited 14×
- City of Chicago v. BakerSeventh Circuit· 1898-04-18· cited 13×
- Lockwood & Strickland Co. v. City of ChicagoIllinois Supreme Court· 1917-06-21· cited 11×
- Hubbell v. City of Des MoinesSupreme Court of Iowa· 1915-10-02· cited 11×
- Chicago National Bank v. City of Chicago HeightsIllinois Supreme Court· 1958-05-21· cited 10×
- Metropolitan West Side Elevated R. R. v. GollAppellate Court of Illinois· 1902-02-21· cited 9×
- Louden v. StarrSupreme Court of Iowa· 1915-10-02· cited 9×
- Hamilton v. Semet Solvay Co.Illinois Supreme Court· 1907-04-18· cited 8×
- People ex rel. Weber v. AtkinsIllinois Supreme Court· 1920-10-23· cited 7×
- C. Hacker Co. v. City of JolietAppellate Court of Illinois· 1915-11-05· cited 6×
- Davis v. City of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois· 1937-05-10· cited 6×
- Berry v. City of ChicagoAppellate Court of Illinois· 2019-10-07· cited 2×
- Campbell v. City of ChicagoSeventh Circuit· 1941-05-07· cited 2×
Cites
1 case in this archive is cited by this case.
Other cases named Parker v. Catholic Bishop
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.