Carver v. Sheriff of La Salle County

203 Ill. 2d 497 (Ill. 2003) · Supreme Court of Illinois · February 6, 2003 · No. No. 91108

Summary

The Supreme Court of Illinois answered a certified question from the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit concerning responsibility for paying an official-capacity judgment entered against a county sheriff's office. The court held that an Illinois sheriff, acting in an official capacity, has authority under the Tort Immunity Act to settle and compromise claims against the sheriff's office. Because the sheriff's office is funded by the county, the county is required to pay an official-capacity judgment, regardless of whether the matter was settled or litigated.

Holdings

  1. A county sheriff falls within the phrase "other local governmental bodies" in section 1-206 of the Tort Immunity Act and is therefore a local public entity under the Act.
  2. Under section 9-102 of the Tort Immunity Act, a county sheriff, acting in an official capacity, has authority to settle and compromise litigation brought against the sheriff's office and to direct the office to pay the settlement.
  3. Because the sheriff's office is funded by the county and lacks authority to levy taxes or establish its own budget, the county is obligated to provide funds to pay an official-capacity judgment entered against the sheriff's office.
  4. The county's obligation to pay an official-capacity judgment does not depend on whether the judgment resulted from a settlement or from litigation to verdict.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether a county sheriff is a local public entity under the Illinois Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act.
  2. Whether an Illinois county sheriff, acting in an official capacity, has authority to settle and compromise claims against the sheriff's office.
  3. Whether the county must provide funds to pay an official-capacity judgment entered against the sheriff's office.
  4. Whether the county's obligation differs when the judgment results from a settlement rather than litigation to verdict.
  5. Whether county-board approval is required before a sheriff settles an official-capacity claim against the sheriff's office.

Disposition

other

Cases Cited (23)

  • Carver v. Condie, 169 F.3d 469 (7th Cir. 1999)(followed for procedural history)
  • Carver v. Sheriff of La Salle County, 243 F.3d 379 (7th Cir. 2001)(relied upon)
  • Michigan Avenue National Bank v. County of Cook, 191 Ill. 2d 493, 247 Ill. Dec. 473, 732 N.E.2d 528 (2000)(followed)
  • Harinek v. 161 North Clark Street Ltd. Partnership, 181 Ill. 2d 335, 230 Ill. Dec. 11, 692 N.E.2d 1177 (1998)(followed)
  • Boaden v. Department of Law Enforcement, 171 Ill. 2d 230, 215 Ill. Dec. 664, 664 N.E.2d 61 (1996)(followed)
  • Sylvester v. Industrial Comm'n, 197 Ill. 2d 225, 258 Ill. Dec. 548, 756 N.E.2d 822 (2001)(followed)
  • Henrich v. Libertyville High School, 186 Ill. 2d 381, 238 Ill. Dec. 576, 712 N.E.2d 298 (1998)(followed)
  • Yang v. City of Chicago, 195 Ill. 2d 96, 253 Ill. Dec. 418, 745 N.E.2d 541 (2001)(followed)
  • Nottage v. Jeka, 172 Ill. 2d 386, 217 Ill. Dec. 298, 667 N.E.2d 91 (1996)(followed)
  • In re Detention of Lieberman, 201 Ill. 2d 300, 267 Ill. Dec. 81, 776 N.E.2d 218 (2002)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 23.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…

More from Illinois Supreme Court