Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Urban v. Village of Inverness

Appellate Court of Illinois

Decided November 18, 1988No. 86-0083Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partJustice Murray

I agree -with the majority that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the last injury. However, I disagree with the majority as to the propriety of reversal of the trial court’s summary action at least as to the Inverness Park District.

The Illinois Drainage Code provides that only a party who wilfully obstructs or damages a drainage pipe may be held liable for damages resulting therefrom. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 42, par. 12—7.) Illinois case law establishes that the only duty a party participant of a drainage system has is to refrain from overt acts which are disruptive of…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Dakovitz v. Arrow Road Construction Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1975
  2. Petry v. Chicago Title & Trust Co.Appellate Court of Illinois · 1977
  3. People Ex Rel. Chicago Title & Trust Co. v. City of Des PlainesAppellate Court of Illinois · 1966
  4. Fobar v. HigginsonAppellate Court of Illinois · 1955

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API