Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Line of Duty Compensation
Download PDF

Guy H. Casey v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 526 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1931-05-15 No. 1543
Disposition: (No. 1543-Claimant awarded $976.10.) Award: $976.10
Cite as: Guy H. Casey v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 526 (1931)
Line of Duty Compensation 6 awarded 1930s Guy H. Casey v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 526 1931-05-15 (No. 1543-Claimant awarded $976.10.) /opinions/v06-p0555-1/

GUY H. CASEY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, a State Highway Patrolman, was injured in a motorcycle collision with an unlighted wagon. The court found the accident occurred in the line of duty and awarded $976.10, as recommended by the Attorney General.

Claim type: Line Of Duty Death

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

Headnotes

  1. PERSONAL INJURY-when award will be made. Where it appears from

It appears that the claimant was employed as a State Highway Patrolman at the time he sustained personal injuries on Route No. 2. It appears that his motorcycle collided with the rear end of a wagon having no lights. There is no objection to the contention that this accident occurred in the line of duty; that claimant suffered a number of minor bruises and lacerations about the body and a fracture of the right knee cap. Claimant contends that injury has resulted in considerable loss in the use of his right leg.

The Attorney General comes and defends and states to the court that in event liability is established, it recommends that an award be made not to exceed the sum of $976.10.

The court is of the opinion that from all the facts and circumstances presented that the award of the claimant should be in the sum of $976.10. The court believes that this is fair and reasonable.

Therefore the court recommends that the claimant be allowed the sum of $976.10.

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.