Paris v. Chicago Transit Authority

Plaintiffs, owners and residents of property near CTA elevated tracks, sued after the CTA announced plans to remove vehicles and structures from land beneath the tracks that plaintiffs had long used for parking and other purposes. Plaintiffs asserted adverse possession, sought a declaratory judgment and prescriptive easement, and obtained a 10-day TRO from the circuit court enjoining the CTA from towing vehicles or demolishing structures, while ordering plaintiffs to escrow parking revenue. The CTA and its codefendant appealed the TRO under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 307(a) and (d).

The First District affirmed. It first confirmed jurisdiction because the notice of appeal and Rule 307(d) petition were timely filed after the TRO issued. On the merits, the court held plaintiffs' complaint and exhibits—which included specific addresses and a legal description of the disputed land—provided sufficient particularity to distinguish the case from Capstone and support a fair question of a protectible property right. The court also held the TRO's scope, limited to a specific geographic area and specific prohibited acts (towing, demolition), satisfied section 11-101's particularity requirement and properly preserved the status quo. On likelihood of success, the court clarified that public ownership of land does not automatically defeat adverse possession; only actual public use of the specific parcel does, and here there was a fair question whether the land beneath (as distinct from) the tracks had been used publicly for 20 years. Finally, the court found irreparable harm and lack of an adequate legal remedy were adequately shown through allegations of continuous trespass and interference with ongoing parking business relationships.

For practitioners, this decision is significant for real property and municipal litigation involving adverse possession or prescriptive easement claims against government-owned infrastructure, clarifying that non-use of publicly owned land—even land adjacent to actively used public infrastructure—can support a fair question of adverse possession sufficient to sustain preliminary injunctive relief.