John B. Murphey

Partner

Phone (312) 541-1072

John B. Murphey represents local governmental units in all phases of litigation in the state and federal courts. He also advises local governments on matters relating to employee rights and discipline, and serves as special labor counsel to a number of municipalities.

Mr. Murphey serves as corporate counsel to over a dozen Illinois cities, villages, school districts, and community college districts. He has argued numerous cases before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the Illinois Supreme Court on issues, including first amendment, fair housing, due process, employment discrimination, and zoning. DeBoer v. Village of Oak Park, 267 F.3d 558 (7th Cir. 2001); Hemisphere Building Co. v. Village of Richton Park, 171 F.3d 437 (7th Cir. 1999); Panozzo v. Rhoads, 905 F.2d 135 (7th Cir. 1990); United States Labor Party v. Oremus, 619 F.2d 683 (7th Cir. 1980); Hawthorne v. Village of Olympia Fields, 204 Ill.2d 243 (2003); Lapp v. Winnetka, 359 Ill.App.3d 152 (1st Dist. 2005); Village of Frankfort v. Village of Richton Park, 366 Ill.App.3d 649 (1st Dist. 2006).

Mr. Murphey has also represented both plaintiffs and defendants in Section 1983 litigation. As plaintiff's attorney he successfully represented an individual falsely arrested on accusations that he was the Unibomber in Ross v. City of Evanston, 96 C 6042 (N.D. Ill.). He represented Amoco Oil Company in the landmark decision of Amoco Oil Company v. Village of Schaumburg, 277 Ill.App.3d 926 (1st Dist. 1996), the first Illinois decision finding that a municipal land use dedication requirement was an unconstitutional regulatory taking. Most recently, Mr. Murphey represented the plaintiff in Baird v. Board of Education, 389 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 2004), holding that a school superintendent terminated for cause is entitled to full procedural due process rights.

On the defense side, Mr. Murphey has litigated several recent noteworthy cases, including Pepper v. Village of Oak Park, 430 F.3d 805 (7th Cir. 2005) (false arrest/state action); Stachowski v. Cicero, 425 F.3d 1075 (7th Cir. 2005) (employment termination/procedural due process); Mainstreet Realtors v. Calumet City, 505 F.3d 742 (7th Cir. 2007) (associational standing); and Sigsworth v. City of Aurora, 487 F.3d 506 (7th Cir. 2007) (applying Garcetti to a police whistleblower claim).

Mr. Murphey makes regular presentations on issues relating to civil rights to bar and continuing legal education groups. Mr. Murphey has also been an elected official, serving for 12 years as a member of his local school board, the last four as President.

Mr. Murphey has been included in the roster of Illinois Super Lawyers for the past six years and has been named to Best Lawyers in America for 2010.

• EDUCATION
  • Loyola University of
    Chicago School of Law
    cum laude, JD, 1976
  • BA, Loras College
• PRACTICE AREAS
  • Municipal law
  • Regulatory compliance
  • Labor relations
  • Civil rights
  • Zoning and land use
  • Real estate
  • Election law
• MEMBERSHIPS
  • Bar of the State of Illinois
  • Bar of the U.S. District Court for
    The Northern District of Illinois
  • American Bar Association:
    State and Local Government Sections
  • Chicago Bar Association
  • Illinois Municipal League:
    Home Rule Attorneys Committee
  • Illinois State Bar Association:
    Education and Local Government Sections
  • Member for past 10 years of the faculty for the IICLE's civil rights symposium, which was recently presented nationwide via the Continuing Legal Education Satellite Network
• PUBLICATIONS
  • Author, “Resignation Agreements and Releases, How Safe is the Public Employer?”, Journal of Illinois Institute for Local Government Law (2008)
  • Contributor, Civil Rights Litigation and Attorney's Fees Handbook (Published by Clark Boardman)
  • Author, Chapters on “Elections” and “Community Colleges” in the IICLE Handbook entitled ‘Illinois School Law’
  • Written various articles which have been published in the Illinois Municipal Law Journal and the Journal of the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers (NIMLO).
• WHITE PAPER
  • The Freedom of Information Act
    Amendments Made Easy [PDF]
• RECENT COURT CASES

Brandt v. Village of Winnetka No. 09-3709, 2010 WL 2813648 (7th Cir. July 20, 2010), a resident challenged the constitutionality of an ordinance enacted by the Village whereby the Village sought to recoup the costs that it incurs providing services to residents who host private events at which the guest of honor is a political figure who requires a high degree of security. Plaintiff’s contention was that the ordinance violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The District Court granted the Village’s motion for summary judgment for want of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals held that while the District Court did have jurisdiction it nonetheless affirmed and modified the dismissal as “an exercise of the court’s discretion not to issue a declaratory judgment” in cases, such as this, where the controversy is not ripe for adjudication. Brandt is the third case in the past few months where Mr. Murphey has successfully defended municipal ordinances before the United States Court of Appeals. In Mann v. Calumet City, Ill., 588 F.3d 949 (7th Cir. 2009), Mr. Murphey represented Calumet City in its successful defense of the city’s point-of-sale real estate inspection ordinance. The Seventh Circuit upheld the validity of the ordinance in the face of several constitutional challenges made by local realtors. In a third case argued by Mr. Murphey, on July 2, 2010, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, upheld the Village of Hazel Crest’s zoning ordinance against challenges that it violated the “equal terms” provision of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, Ill., No. 08-2819, 2010 WL 2630602 (7th Cir. July 2, 2010).  Austin Bank of Chicago v. Village of Barrington Hills (Ill. App. Ct., 1st Dist., No. 1-08-2315, Nov. 9, 2009) Affirmed decision of the Cook County Circuit Court that Village's attempt to prevent client/landowner from disconnecting a parcel of land from Village amounted to a “legal gimmick.”  River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest (7th Circuit Ct. of Appeals, No. 08-2819, Oct. 27, 2009) 7th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the United States District Court denying an injunction that would have allowed church to operate in an area not zoned for religious purposes, holding “any irreparable harm [the Church] may suffer does not significantly outweigh the potential harm to the Village.”