Flood, Harinek, scad Hen-rich, but the rationale of River Park was based on a case that originated before the 1970 Constitution. In that decision, Young v. Hansen, 118 Ill. App. 2d 1 (1969), the Second District adopted the common law exception of “corrupt or malicious motives” as an exception to the Act. Young held that the “immunity afforded by section 2 — 201—while not expressly referring to the question of malice — extends only to those types of acts not resulting from corrupt or malicious motives.” Young, 118 Ill. App. 2d at 8. Since then, the Second District has followed the Young holding to recognize the “corrupt or malicious motives” exception to other grants of immunity by the Act. See River Park, 281 Ill. App. 3d at 163; Madonna v. Giacobbe, 190 Ill. App. 3d 859, 868 (1989) (<HOLDING>); Idlehour Development Co. v. City of St.
recognizing corrupt or malicious motives exception to sections 2  103 2  201 and 2  205 recognizing corrupt or malicious motives exception to sections 2  201 and 2  206 of the act recognizing such an exception recognizing exception recognizing the rule and the exception but holding facts did not support claim to exception