# City of Des Plaines v. Chicago & North Western Railway Co.

> Illinois Supreme Court · October 1, 1976 · 65 Ill. 2d 1

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9525493

## Case

- **Full name:** The CITY OF DES PLAINES, Appellee, v. CHICAGO AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** October 1, 1976
- **Citations:** 65 Ill. 2d 1; 2 Ill. Dec. 266; 357 N.E.2d 433; 1976 Ill. LEXIS 404
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ward
- **Judges:** Kluczynski, Ryan, Goldenhersh, Ward
- **Cited by:** 23 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/9525493

## Opinion text

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARD, also dissenting:
The question here and in the earlier cases to which Mr. Justice Ryan refers is not one which can be clearly and easily settled. However, I, too, consider, especially in the case of home rule units, that local governmental units generally should be able to act concurrently with the State in the environmental protection field. There will be instances where difficult problems may be presented, but the problems certainly would not be beyond solution. In any event this is to be preferred to the majority’s holding that local governmental units, including home rule municipalities, have no power to protect themselves from environmental damage.
Illustrating the anomalous consequences of the majority’s position, the city of Chicago, a home rule unit and the railroad center of the United States, is utterly without authority to act to protect its citizens from environmental harm caused by railroads, or, for that matter, caused by anything or anyone else. Every small village as well as every large city must depend for protection solely on the State’s interest in their environmental problems and the adequacy of its protective action. I join in Mr. Justice Ryan’s dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9525493. Public record. Not legal advice.