Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Line of Duty Compensation
Download PDF

Clough v. State of Illinois

5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1925-04-10 No. 864
Disposition: (No. 864-Claimant awarded $766.85.) Award: $766.85 Agency: Chicago Hospital at Dunning
Cite as: Clough v. State of Illinois, 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108 (1925)
Line of Duty Compensation 5 awarded 1920s Clough v. State of Illinois 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 108 1925-04-10 (No. 864-Claimant awarded $766.85.) /opinions/v05-p0128-1/

FLORENCE H. CLOUGH, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation for household goods, wares, and clothing lost in a fire while in line of duty as a state employee. The court awarded $766.85, the proven loss amount, based on the reasoning in the Underwood case.

Claim type: Line Of Duty Death

Cases cited: Underwood vs. State, No. 831 (1925)

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. PROPERTY LOSS-award may be made to State employee. This case is sim-

This is a claim filed by Florence Clough against the State for household goods, wares and clothing, lost by her while in line of duty as an employee of the State, by fire on the 16th day of December, 1923, when the Annex of Chicago Hospital at Dunning was destroyed by fire. The facts and evidence are identical with that in case No. 831 of Underwood vs. State, opinion filed in April, 1925, and it is unnecessary to reiterate them.

The articles lost are minutely itemized, and prices seem fairly reasonable. The State is at disadvantage in getting evidence in its defense in cases of this character, and we must depend largely on the credibility of claimants and the apparent reasonableness of the prices shown. [*109]

Claimant's proven losses amount to $766.85, which sum we award to her for same reasons stated in the Underwood case.

Official volume 5 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1923–June 30, 1927)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.