# Carlson v. Village of Worth

> Illinois Supreme Court · February 5, 1976 · 62 Ill. 2d 406

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739860

## Case

- **Full name:** HARRY A. CARLSON, Appellee, v. THE VILLAGE OF WORTH, Appellant
- **Court:** Illinois Supreme Court
- **Decided:** February 5, 1976
- **Citations:** 62 Ill. 2d 406; 343 N.E.2d 493; 1976 Ill. LEXIS 474
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Ward
- **Judges:** Schaefer, Ryan, Underwood, Ward
- **Cited by:** 37 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/9739860

## Opinion text

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE WARD, also dissenting:
I share the concern which Mr. Justices Underwood and Ryan have expressed.
It is remarkable, as Mr. Justice Ryan observes, that the opinion of the majority imposes upon the Environmental Protection Agency an authority which not only the Village but the Agency itself and the Attorney General as well object to and correctly (to me) say the Agency has not been given by the legislature.
I do not have the small confidence that Mr. Justice Underwood appears to have in the survival of our decision in City of Chicago v. Pollution Control Board, 59 Ill.2d 484 , as to the power of home rule units to act concurrently with the State in the environmental regulatory area. It is clear to me, especially from the majority’s discussion' of the amicus curiae brief filed in behalf of the City of Chicago, that the question as to the exclusivity of the State’s authority has been settled by this opinion. The view expressed by this court in City of Chicago has been, in practical terms, interred, though it seems obvious to me that environmental pollution pertains to a municipality’s “government and affairs.”

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9739860. Public record. Not legal advice.