F. STUART, 1431; Claimants, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondents.

Case summary

The claimant sought relief from the State of Illinois. The court denied the claim, relying on the reasoning in a prior case, and later denied a petition for rehearing.

Claim type: Other

Cases cited: Frank Theiler v. The State of Illinois, No. 1413; Julia Cosgrave v. State of Illinois, No. 1414; Henry McMillan v. State of Illinois, No. 1415; M. E. Spafford v. State of Illinois, No. 1416; Frank Hillock v. State of Illinois, No. 1417; Fred Shaw v. State of Illinois, No. 1450

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

Headnotes

PROPERTY DAMAGE-when no award will be made. These claims are de- REHEARING-when rehearing will be denied. Where the petition for

Rehearing denied September 10, 1929. PROPERTY DAMAGE-when no award will be made. These claims are denied for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the Court filed on April 25, 1929, in the case of Frank Theiler, v. State of Illinois, No. 1413. REHEARING-when rehearing will be denied. Where the petition for rehearing points out no fact or principle of law that was not considered by the Court in arriving at its decision a rehearing will be denied. SCANLAN & MASSIEON, for claimants. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; ROY D. JOHNSON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS delivered the opinion of the court:

For the reasons set forth in the opinion, filed in this court April 25th, 1929, in the case of Frank Theiler v. The State of [*323] Illinois, No. 1413, Julia Cosgrave v. State of Illinois, No. 1414, Henry McMillan v. State of Illinois, No. 1415, M. E. Spafford v. State of Illinois, No. 1416, Frank Hillock v. State of Illinois, No. 1417, and Fred Shaw v. State of Illinois, No. 1450, these claims are denied.

On September 10, 1929, upon petition for rehearing, the following additional opinion was filed: The petition for a rehearing in these cases is but a reargument of the questions involved in them, and points out no fact or principle of law that was not fully considered by the court in arriving at its decision. We have, however, again carefully read the abstract and brief of claimants and find no reason for changing our views. The petition for a rehearing is therefore denied in each of the cases.