# Illinois State Toll Highway Authority v. Itasca Bank & Trust Co.

> Appellate Court of Illinois · August 1, 1991 · 216 Ill. App. 3d 926

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7024701

## Case

- **Full name:** THE ILLINOIS STATE TOLL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY v. ITASCA BANK AND TRUST COMPANY
- **Court:** Appellate Court of Illinois
- **Decided:** August 1, 1991
- **Citations:** 216 Ill. App. 3d 926; 160 Ill. Dec. 267; 576 N.E.2d 1221; 1991 Ill. App. LEXIS 1312
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by McLaren
- **Judges:** McLaren, Nickels
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7024701

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding that evidence of special benefits of a highway project should have been excluded where no part of landowner’s property was taken for the highway, but instead the property was taken for "off alignment improvements” deemed necessary for the project

## Opinion text

JUSTICE McLAREN, dissenting:
There is one aspect of the majority opinion with which I disagree and, therefore, I must dissent. The majority interprets the phrase “any public improvement to be erected on such property” too narrowly. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 110, par. 7 — 120.) I agree that no part of the toll way is on the subject property; however, I believe that the term “public improvement to be erected on such property” relates to the entire project and not just the tollway right-of-way. There was testimony that the realignments which related to this property were necessary and part of the public improvement to be erected on such property. Therefore, the testimony had a proper foundation and should have been admitted so that the trier of fact could determine what weight should be given to this evidence. The majority directs its attention to the Heritage Standard Bank case, rather than directing its attention to section 7 — 120 of the Code. I believe it is a question of fact and not a question of law as to whether evidence concerning special benefits accrued to this particular property. (See Illinois State Toll Highway Authority v. Heritage Standard Bank & Trust Co. (1990), 196 Ill. App. 3d 5, 14 .) I believe the trial court did not err in admitting evidence regarding special benefits because there was competent testimony from witnesses establishing the property taken from the defendants was necessary for and part of the public improvement to be erected.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7024701. Public record. Not legal advice.