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.
City of Elgin v. Elgin National Bank
Citations: 174 Ill. App. 3d 1061; 529 N.E.2d 639; 124 Ill. Dec. 658; 1988 Ill. App. LEXIS 1293Docket: No. 1—87—3285
Court: Appellate Court of Illinois; September 1, 1988; Illinois; State Appellate Court
The City of Elgin initiated an eminent domain complaint to acquire 14 acres of land for a flood control facility, specifically to construct a levee across the defendants’ property, which is bordered by Poplar Creek. The defendants, including Elgin National Bank and others, contested the taking as excessive, leading to the trial court sustaining their motion to dismiss, prompting the City to appeal. The proposed levee, approximately 1,400 feet long, aims to mitigate flooding by creating a detention pond on the northern side of the levee. This project was based on recommendations from a 1976 study by the Poplar Creek Steering Committee, aided by various governmental bodies, which highlighted flooding issues and proposed the levee's construction. A preliminary engineering report from the Soil Conservation Service indicated the need for approximately 5.5 acres for the project. In 1984, the City entered a sponsorship agreement with the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) to develop project plans, which were authorized by a city ordinance in 1985. IDOT civil engineer Robert Culli supported the City's proposal, relying on technical data from the 1976 study and his calculations, while admitting he did not evaluate the impact of relocating the levee. Conversely, the defendants' engineer, William Lindley, presented an alternative flood control design that involved constructing a dike along the property's edges, rather than through its center, which would still achieve similar flood prevention results. Lindley’s plan included a detention area primarily on adjacent property owned by the Elgin Rifle Club. Lindley expressed uncertainty regarding the City of Elgin's ownership of the property for a gravity drain and criticized the necessity of taking 14 acres for flood prevention, suggesting that a plan requiring only two acres for a levee and additional land for detention could achieve the same outcome. He referenced a preliminary engineering study indicating a need for approximately five acres. On appeal, the plaintiff contended that the trial court's conclusion of excessive taking was unsupported by the evidence. The court emphasized that determining the appropriateness of a taking involves assessing whether it is grossly excessive for the intended use. It noted that alternative designs proposed by the defendants, which would require less land, are engineering matters outside judicial review. The critical legal question is whether the 14 acres are necessary for the project as planned by the City, not whether a different design could utilize less land. The defendants' only evidence against the necessity of the 14 acres was a preliminary SCS report, which did not definitively establish the land needed for the project. Previous cases cited by the defendants involved situations where the governing body sought more land than necessary for the planned project, unlike the current case, where no evidence showed that not all 14 acres would be utilized. Consequently, the court reversed the trial court’s finding of excessive taking, agreeing that the evidence did not support the conclusion.