Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Conner v. City of Danville
Citations: 20 Ill. App. 3d 389; 314 N.E.2d 206; 1974 Ill. App. LEXIS 2448Docket: No. 12436
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; July 17, 1974; Illinois; State Appellate Court
The court addressed a case involving Donald and Louise Conner, who own a 2%-acre property near Danville and have maintained a mobile home there since 1971. The City of Danville had previously enacted a zoning ordinance extending its authority to lands within 1½ miles of its borders, as well as a "Trailers and Trailer Parks" ordinance restricting mobile home placements to designated areas. The Conners' property is classified as R-1 (Single Family Residential, Low Density), which prohibits mobile homes. The Conners sought a declaratory judgment to declare the "Trailers and Trailer Parks" ordinance null and void, but the trial court upheld its validity, a decision that the Conners conceded. Following the Conners' complaint, the city filed a cross-complaint seeking the mobile home’s removal, which the Conners admitted while asserting two affirmative defenses. The first defense attempted to contest the ordinance's validity again, but was barred by res judicata due to the prior ruling. The second defense argued that the R-1 classification was unreasonable since surrounding properties did not conform to its uses. In support of their argument, the Conners provided an affidavit claiming the presence of four mobile homes and noting that the area was primarily agricultural, with only a few houses nearby. The city did not provide a counter-affidavit, leaving no factual disputes. The court found that the facts presented did not sufficiently demonstrate that the R-1 ordinance was unreasonable as applied to the Conners’ property. Farming and residential uses fell within the ordinance's allowances, and the court noted the ordinance’s presumption of validity. Consequently, the court affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of the city, validating the zoning ordinance and the request for the mobile home's removal. The judgment was affirmed with concurrence from the other judges.