Constitutional, Governmental and Regulatory Litigation

We regularly represent both governmental entities and private parties at all levels of complex and high-stakes constitutional, governmental and regulatory litigation.  We have successfully challenged the constitutionality of Illinois statutes, litigated complex tax controversies, and managed disputes concerning the legality of governmental regulations.  From participating in emergency injunction hearings to presenting oral argument before the Illinois Supreme Court, we have substantial experience litigating disputes over governmental authority.

Representative Matters

  • Heaton v. Quinn (In re Pension Reform Litigation), 2015 IL 118585:  Representing retired teachers, we challenged the constitutionality of amendments to the Illinois Pension Code that reduced the pension benefits of public sector employees.  Working with counsel for other plaintiff groups in this consolidated litigation, we obtained a judgment as a matter of law in the circuit court of Sangamon County that the statute was unconstitutional.  On direct appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously affirmed the judgment in favor of our clients and other plaintiff groups.  Our partner Gino DiVito successfully argued this case before the Illinois Supreme Court.
  • Hartney Fuel Oil Co. v. Hamer, 2013 IL 115130:  We represented the Regional Transportation Authority before the Illinois Supreme Court in litigation over the appropriate legal test to determine how Illinois sales tax should be assessed.  The Illinois Supreme Court unanimously agreed with our contentions as to how such taxes should be assessed, while ruling that certain regulations promulgated by the Illinois Department of Revenue were invalid.  Our partner Gino DiVito successfully argued this case before the Illinois Supreme Court.
  • Caro v. Blagojevich, Illinois Supreme Court Case No. 107633:  In litigation concerning the constitutionality of regulations that expanded a State health care program, we successfully obtained an emergency order from the Illinois Supreme Court that stayed the enforcement of the trial court’s preliminary injunction order and successfully petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court to consider the case on the merits.  This litigation settled prior to a final resolution on the merits.
  • City of Chicago v. Comcast Cable Holdings, LLC, 231 Ill. 2d 399 (2008): Representing Comcast before the Illinois Supreme Court, we successfully argued that federal law preempted the basis on which the City of Chicago attempted to impose a franchise fee upon Comcast.  Our partner Gino DiVito successfully argued this case before the Illinois Supreme Court.
  • Primeco Personal Communications, L.P. v. Illinois Commerce Commission, 196 Ill. 2d 70 (2001):  We successfully argued before the Illinois Supreme Court that a statute which imposed a municipal infrastructure maintenance fee on Primeco violated the uniformity provision of the Illinois Constitution and was therefore invalid.  Our partner Caesar Tabet successfully argued this case before the Illinois Supreme Court.   
This is the registered web site of Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC  |  Disclaimer  |  © 2017 Tabet DiVito & Rothstein LLC