Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Browning, et al. v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 514 Illinois Court of Claims Filed May 14, 1931 No. 1023
Disposition: (Claims allowed in part and denied in part.)
Cite as: Browning, et al. v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 514 (1931)
Legacy General 6 awarded 1930s Browning, et al. v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 514 May 14, 1931 (Claims allowed in part and denied in part.) /opinions/v06-p0543-1/

(Claims allowed in part and denied in part.) MAXINE BROWNING, 1023; ALLEN WILLIAMS, BY THE FOREMAN TRUST & SAVINGS BANK, 1038-1713; SAMUEL G. HARRIS, 1071, Claim- ants, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

The court reopened previously allowed claims and recommended additional amounts for Allen Williams and Samuel G. Harris, each receiving $1,000. No amount was allowed for Maxine Browning, and new cases involving the same parties were dismissed.

Claim type: Other

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

In the above entitled matters this court has made allowances therein for the reasons therein given in the opinion.

It has been directed to the attention of this court that the amounts, as heretofore allowed in these causes, have not [*315] been as much as was proper and desired. That being true, the court has permitted the above entitled causes to be reopened and recommends additional amounts in these cases, in the following sums: Allen Williams, No. 1038, $1,000.00.

Samuel G. Harris, No. 1071, $1,000.00.

No amount is allowed in the Maxine Browning case, No. 1023.

The new cases involving the same person and the same injury, which have recently been filed, are hereby dismissed, being numbered as follows: Maxine Browning, No. 1023; Allen Williams, No. 1713; and Samuel G. Harris, No. 1071.

Official volume 6 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1927–June 30, 1931)  ·  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.