Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Line of Duty Compensation
Download PDF

Daley v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 516 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1931-05-14 No. 1765
Disposition: (No. 1765-Claimant awarded $3,327.30.) Award: $3,327.30 Agency: Illinois State Police
Cite as: Daley v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 516 (1931)

JOHN F. DALEY, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant, a state police officer, was injured while on duty when struck by a truck. The court recommended allowance of $3,327.30 based on the Attorney General's recommendation.

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 claimant received OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

PERSONAL INJURY-when award will be made. Where claimant received injuries in line of duty while employed by the State as a State highway police officer, an award will be made for the injuries sustained. THOMAS A. MURPHY, for claimant. OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLETON, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE CLARITY delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim brought to recover for damages sustained while in the employ of the State of Illinois and in the line of duty. It appears that while riding on a motorcycle on duty [*527] assigned to him by a superior on Route 21 of the Illinois hard road system, he was struck by a truck without apparent fault as to him; that he received serious injuries requiring considerable medical attention.

The Attorney General comes and presents his position with the recommendation of the Superintendent of State Police that this claim be allowed in the sum of $3,327.30.

Therefore this court recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of Three Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-seven 30/100 ($3,327.30) Dollars.

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.