Opinion ID: 1179553
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: conclusion

Text: The majority opinion concludes at page 810: Specifically, we instruct the trial court to limit its calculation of damages to those which arise from nonprotected actions by city officials in tortiously interfering with this project. All city officials involved interfered with the project by downzoning the land and by requesting various Environmental Impact Statements, but such actions are immune. If actions of the Mayor, City Councilman and the Superintendent of Buildings are immune from liability for damages by reason of downzoning and requests for Environmental Impact Statements, any incidental actions that such officials used or participated in, on the strategy of downzoning and requesting Environmental Impact Statements, are also immune. Who are these public officials who are not immune that the majority speaks of. In any event, the City's requirements of an EIS were not the proximate cause of Parkridge's damages. The plaintiff did not seek review in the courts, as he undoubtedly thought he would have lost, as his contentions were that the downzoning and the requests for Environmental Impact Statements by the City had caused his delay and damages. Downzoning and requests for Environmental Impact Statements by the City, however, are immune. I would affirm the Court of Appeals and dismiss the plaintiff's judgment. Reconsideration denied October 4, 1989.