Irving Silvers v. State of Illinois

This cause of action was brought by the claimant against the respondent, State of Illinois, for personal injuries and property damage suffered by claimant, Irving Silvers, when the automobile he was driving struck a barrier median on Willow Road near the Tri-State Tollway in Cook County, Illinois.

On February 19, 1964, at approximately 7:30 p.m., Irving Silvers, the claimant, was operating his automobile in an easterly direction on Willow Road near the Tri-State Tollway in Cook County, Illinois. Traffic was light, and there were no other eastbound vehicles at that time. The weather was clear, and the pavement dry. Willow Road inclines upward as it approaches the overpass above the Tri-State Tollway. At the top of the incline there is a concrete abutment, technically known as a barrier median, which is approximately eight inches high, four to five feet in width, and four hundred feet in length, running in an east to west direction, and located in the middle of Willow Road. The accident in question occurred when claimant's car struck the west end of this barrier median.

At the point of the accident, Willow Road is a four-lane [*343]

I

I

highway. Claimant was proceeding eastbound in the inner lane when the left side of claimant’s automobile struck the barrier median, causing personal injuries to claimant and damage to his automobile.

Claimant testified that at the time of the accident he was driving his automobile at a speed of approximately 30 miles per hour. The evidence indicates that approximately one-tenth of a mile west of the barrier median there is an informational sign bearing the legend “Center Curb Ahead”.

There is also the customary section of ribbed concrete one hundred feet in advance of the barrier median. The purpose of this ribbed section of concrete is to cause vibrations to a motorist’s automobile and generate a peculiar noise, warning a motorist that he has departed from and is not driving on the normal pavement.

Harry Waldon, Field Traffic Engineer, Division of Highways, testified that it would not be possible to strike the barrier median without first passing over this ribbed section of concrete. Cl’aldon further testified that running parallel to the ribbed concrete section, and continuing along the side of the southern edge of the barrier median, was a painted, yellow diversionary line. \Valdon also testified that, as a general policy, there would be posted a “Keep Right” sign at each end of a barrier median. The claimant testified, and the evidence indicates, that there was no “Keep Right” warning sign or other device of a similar nature located at the west end of the barrier median.

The evidence ifidicated that a “Keep Right” sign was placed near the west end of the barrier median when it \\.as originally constructed. However, this sign \vas subsequently torn down, and had not, at the time of the accident, been replaced. Claimant alleges that respondent’s failure to replace the “Keep Right” sign, or to provide other warning devices as to the existence of the barrier niedian.

[*344] constituted negligence on the part of the respondent, which was the proximate cause of the accident.

It is the duty of the State of Illinois to maintain the highways within its jurisdiction and under its control in a reasonably safe condition or in the event a dangerous or unsafe condition exists, to warn those persons using the highway of said dangerous or unsafe condition. Thompson vs. State of Illinois, 24 C.C.R. 219; Bloom vs. State of ll- I linois, 22 C.C.R. 582; McNary vs. State of Illinois, 22 C.C.R. 328.

In the case of Thompson vs. State of Illinois, 24 C.C.H. 219, the Court said: “It is an established rule, the state is not an insurer of all those traveling upon the highway, the extent of its duty being to use reasonable care to keep the highways in a reasonably safe condition for persons exercising due care for their own safety.”

The law in the State of Illinois is clear that in order for a claimant in a tort action to recover he must prove that the State was negligent, that this negligence was the proximate cause of the injury, and that claimant was in the exercise of due care and caution for his own safety. Link vs. State of Illinois, 24 C.C.R. 69; McNary vs. State of Illinois, 22 C.C.R. 328; Bloom vs. State of Illinois, 22 C.C.R. 582. The burden of proof is upon the claimant to prove freedom from contributory negligence.

While there is some dispute as to the existence of the yellow diversionary line running parallel to the corrugated or ribbed concrete section and continuing alongside the edge of the barrier median, there is no dispute as to the existence of the “Center Curb Ahead” sign, approximately one-tenth of a mile west of the barrier median, or to the existence of a ribbed concrete section running one hundred feet in advance of the barrier median. Claimant testified that he did not observe the yc4ow diversionary line; that he did not observe the “Center Curb Ahead” $ign, or experience any vibrations or hear any warning noises, that [*345] would indicate that he had departed from the normal driving pavement, and was passing over the ribbed concrete section.

It is the opinion of this Court that the claimant, Irving Silvers, has failed to sustain the burden of proof that he w is free from contributory negligence in connection vr7ith the accident in question. Claimant’s failure to sustain thc burden of proof that he was free from contributor), negligence effectively bars his right to recover damages from respondent for personal injuries and property damage when claimant’s automobile struck the barrier median. For this reason the question of whether respondent’s needs to maintain a “Keep Right” sign at the end of the barrier median need not be considered by the Court.

Clairnant’s claim is hereby denied.

(\I). . 5 4 J -(:l:iiiiiaiit i i \ v m I ( d $Z.SOO.OO.)

X.IARll.YN KIRKLAND,( :l;lilll:lllt, OS. STATE OF ILLINOIS, H t ~ s ~ ) o ~ ~ d ( ~ ~ ~ t .

O/)iriioii {ilcvl . ! f ~ i r d i 24, 1972 HURKKANI) GILLESPIE,Attorney for ClaimGILLESPIE, ant .

M’ILLIAM J . SCOTT, Attorney General; LEE I>. M ARTIN , Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent. ( h i w I1wi)iwi.m -strko.!/. \\‘Ii(w claiiiimt had passctl tvst to I ) ( Y Y ) I I I ( ~ :I Class A coiirt rt*pi)i-ti-r.:iiiiI\\ orkc-tl :IS :I (:lass A coiirt rrportcr. slw is c.iititlt*tl to lw coni1)cwat(~(I:IS ;I ( X is \ 4 cviirt rc.l)ortc’r.

PER CURIAM.

On January 3, 1966, the claimant, Marilyn Kirkland, was appointed as a court reporter for the Seventh Jiiclicial Circiiit of Illinois by Chief Judge Creel Douglass. Her ai)- pointinent is rnade pilrsnant to the Court Reporters Act, Ch. 37, Sec. 651-659, Ill.Hev.Stat, 1965. On the siiriw [*346] da!~, Januar), 3, 1966, claimant took the official oath as required bjr statute and served as a court reporter from January 3, 1966, until January 16, 1968, when she resigned her position.

Section 657 of the Court Reporters Act provided that each court reporter in office on January 1, 1966, or appointed on or after that date, must take a test to determine his or her proficiency. The statute provides that the proficiencj. test shall consist of two parts, designated Part A and Part B. During the month of Februar)?, 1966, claimant took and passed Part €3 of the proficiency test provided for bjr statute. Thereafter, under the provisions of Section 658 of the Court Reporters Act, claimant was paid a salary of $6,- 000.00 per year in monthly installments of $500.00.

On February 16, 1967, claimant took and passed Part A of the proficiency test, and was so notified by letter on March 1, 1967. Section 658 of the Court Reporters Act provides that Class A court reporters shall receive a salar). of $9,000.00 per year.

Claimant’s complaint alleges that from March 1, 1967, until January 16,1968, when she resigned as a court reporter for the Seventh Judicial Circuit of the State of Illinois, the respondent, State of Illinois, failed and refused to pay claimant a salary of $9,000.00 per year in monthly installments of $750.00, but continued to pay her a salary of a Class B court reporter, namely $6,000.00 per year in monthly installments of $500.00. The claimant seeks damages in the sum of $2,625.00, which represents the difference in the statutory salaries of a Class A and a Class B court reporter for the period beginning March 1,1967, and ending January 16, 1968.

The record in this case reveals that all of the allegations [*347]

I

347 I

of claimant’s complaint were supported by the testimoiq, of I claimant.

Respondent introduced no witnesses or evidence at the hearing. However, the record contains a departmental report and answers to interrogatories filed by the claimant.

The defense to the claim appears to be that after claimant took and passed Part A of the proficiency examination, thereby qualifying as a Class A reporter, she waived her right to receive the $9,000.00 per year salary in a conversation with Chief Judge Creel Ihuglass, who had been asked by the Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts to see if claimant and another court reporter who had passed Part A of the examination would work for $6,- 000.00 per year, although both were classified as Class A reporters. Such waiver was .emphatically denied by clainiant during the hearing, and no evidence was introduced to support the alleged waiver.

Although respondent alleges further that it was the policy of the Illinois Supreme Court after August, 1966, to pay $9,000.00 per year, to court reporters who passed Part A of the proficiency examination if they reported for a Circuit Judge, or if they worked full time on a reasonably heavy trial schedule of reasonably difficult cases, and if there were limited Class A openings, there is no statutory basis for this position. The applicable statute provides as follows: “Salaries. $8. The salaries of all court rq~ortershall be paid b!. t h bt;itt*.

Class A reporters shall receive 89000 per )car. and Class B reporters shall rcrc+cs $6000 per year. The salaries shall he paid monthl!, on the \,owher of the Siipru11ch Court.” (111.Rev.Stat. c.08 Cj6S.58.)

In August, 1967, effective January 1, 1968, that portion of the Statute was amended to provide that the Director of the Administrative Office of the Illinois Courts may set up a salary schedule for each individual court reporter which [*348] reflects the “following relevant factors: (a) proficiency I rating; (2) experience; (3) population of the area to which a reporter is normally assigned; (4)the types of cases and the number of each type of case to which a reporter is regularly assigned; (5) other factors considered relevant by the Director.”

Respondent cites the Illinois Constitution, Article IV $19, and the claimant cites the Illinois Constitution, Article V $23, the former prohibiting extra compensation to public servants after service is rendered and the latter providing that a state officer’s salary may not be diminished during his term of office. Neither provision appears applicable to the instant case.

The 1965 statutory language does not qualify the right of a Class A reporter to receive the $9,000.00 per year salary prescribed. From March 1, 1967, until January 1, 1968, the date the amended provision took effect, claimant is entitled to the extra $2!50.00 per month which was authorized for all Class A reporters.

Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of $2,500.00.

(No. 56%-Claimant awirded $4,259.12.)

RUSK AVIATION, I NC., A Corporation, Claimant, os. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Olhion filed March 24, 1972.

NUTTING AND LUCAS, Attorney for ClaimBISSONNETTE, ant.

WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General, for Respondent.

PRISONERS A N D INhf Ans-damage, escaped inmates. Where respondent recommends an award to claimant whose property was damaged, an award will be entered accordingly.

PERLIN, C.J. Claimant seeks recovery of damages incurred to property owned by it when two inmates es[*349]

349 I

caped from the Kankakee State Mental Hospital in Kankakee, Illinois, on May 15, 1967. The statutory provision under which the suit is brought provides as follows: “Whenever a clain~is filed with the Ilepartrnent of Mental I I w l t h , tlw Department of Children and Family Services, the llepartrncwt of IJrihlic Sxfrt!.. the Youth Commission, or the Ilepartinent of Youth, as the cascb I I M ~hc, for damages resnlting from personal injuries or dainages to property, or both or tor damages resulting from property being stolen, heretofore or herc&tbr caiwtl I)!, an inmate who has escaped from a charitable, penal, reforrnatory. or other institiition over which the Statc of Illinois has control while he was at liberty ;iftc,r his escape, the 1)epartment of Mental Health, the Ilepartinent of Children and Vainly Services, the Ilepartrnent of Public Safety, the Youth Coniinissioii, or tlw Department of Youth. as the case may be, shall conduct an investigation to tlrtvrmine the c a i is ~and if it is found after investigation that the damage was cansed by one who had bren an inmate of such institution and had escaped, the Ilepartnient or Commission may recommend to theCoiirt of Claims that an award he made to the injured party and the Court of Claims shall have the power to hear and determine such claims.” (Chapter 23, $4041, Illinois Revised Statutes, 1967.)

The record contains reports that inmates, Patrick Henry Wright and Edward Patterson had escaped from the Kankakee State Mental Hospital on May 14,1967, and were returned May 15, 1967; and that Patterson admitted going during the time of escape to the Kankakee airport, stealing a pickup truck and with it smashing into two airplanes, damaging the truck and one of the airplanes.

Mr. Willard Rusk testified that he was the president of Rusk Aviation, Inc. on May 15, 1967, which company was acting as broker for one D-18 S twin engine Beachcraft airplane. There is no dispute over the facts. It appears that the inmates took a 1981 Chevrolet service truck owned by claimant and backed it into the tail section of the aircraft, causing damage in the amount of $4,125.00 which was the actual cost of repairs for the aircraft and $134.12 for the pickup truck.

Respondent has recommended that the awards in the aforesaid amounts be granted.

Claimant is hereby awarded the sum of $4,259.12.

[*350] anarcled $Ml8)) (So. a574~3-Clai~i~ant I

DR.COMESS

AND ASSOCIATES, S.C.,Claimant, us. STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF M ENTAL H EALTH, Respondent.

Opitiiori filed .\ford1 24, 1972.

DR.COMESS AND ASSOCIATES, S.C., Claimant, pro se.

J. SCOTT, Attorney General; SAUL R . ~ ~ ' E X L E R ,

WILLIAM

Assistant Attorne?, General, for Respondent.

PERLIN, C.J

(So. q5766-Ckii1n:mt ;i\vartletl $1.000.00.)

FRIENDLY CHEVROLET, INC., Claimant, os. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Res pond en t .

Opiiiioii filed .Ifarch 24, 1972.

CATRON, SOHLINC, Attorney for Claimant.

AND HARDIN, \I'ILLIAXIJ. SCOTT, Attorney General; U'ILLIAME.

WEBBER, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Clainiant seeks to recover the value of a 1966 Ford which he allegedly failed to receive as a trade-in tvhen he sold a 1969 Chevrolet to the State.

The State's purchase order #885910, dated January 21, 1969, was issued to the clainiant for a 1969 Chevrolet for the price of $2,347.00 less a trade-in allowance of $1,000.00 for a 1966 Ford.

There is no dispute in connection with the purchase order nor its terms. The o n l > r issue presented is whether or [*351] 35 1

I

not the clainiant actuall!T receilred the 1966 Ford that thc State agreed to trade in.

Claimant delivered the nen7 car along with se\wal other new cars to the Department of Agriciiltiire at a State garage. At the time of dehrery, he should have picked up the trade-in vehicle. Later, claiinant discowred that the 1966 Ford trade-in was missing. He contends here that he ne\'er received the trade-in vehicle.

Claimant testified that he delivered the new' car, along with several others, and that at the tiiiie he and hi5 eniplojrees picked i i p several trade-ins. He had a sheet with the State trade-ins listed. As he received a trade-in, hc \voiild check it off. It appeared, however, that the 1966 Ford trade-in \vas ne\Ter checked oft. Claimant actuall!. noticed the missing trade-in some time later. € € etestified, however, that previously on sales there were delays in getting the trade-in; that often times the trade-in \voultl be located in other parts of the State; and that on occasion the) woiild be \vrecked vehicles. The respondent did not offcr an)' e\kIence to the contrary.

The original coinplaint asked for $1,000.00. The c0111- plaint was later ariientled b!. raising the amount to $1200.00 with the statement that the later figure \\'as the fair market value of the trade-in item It is the opinion of this Court that claimant has produced sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case that the State did not deliver the 1966 Ford trade-in as agreed upon in the purchase order.

It is the further opinion of this Court that the s1111i of $1000.00 is the correct arnount that should be allowed to the claimant and an award is therefore entered in said amount 0 f $1000 .oo.

[*352] ( No . t595LCli~itti;~t~t awartltd $78.84.)

MOEHLEPRESCRIPTION P HARMACY, Claimant, vs. STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL, HEALTH, Respondent.

Opitiion filed March 24, 1972.

MOEWLEPRESCRIPTION P HARMACY, Claimant, pro se.

W ILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General; WILLIAM E. WEBBER, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

(No. S997-Claitiiant awarded $255.07.)

Claimant, us. STATE OF ILLINOIS, VARIOUS S UN OIL COMPANY, STATE AGENCIES, Hespondent.

Opinion f i l c d Murch 24, 1972.

SUN O IL COMPANY, Claimant, pro se.

W ILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General; WILLIAM E. WEBBER, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

CONTRACTS-~IJIS~~ uppropriation. IVlien the ~ii~1)roI)ri~itiotifront \vliicli :I claim should h a w been 1)aicI has lai)srd, the Court \vi11 enter ;in ;i\r.artl for tlx. amount due clairtiant.

PERLIN,C.J. (No. 602fi-Claiinant awartletl $1.651.54.)

RALPH VANCIL, I N C., Claimant, us. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Opinion filed March 24, 1972.

LANSDEN AND LANSDEN, Attorney for Claimant.

W ILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General; WILLIAM E. WEBBER, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

CoNmAm-Cmm-gcnc!i work. \Vhere claimant perfortrietl \zork of ;in [*353] emergency natilrc.. claiiiimt \vi)iiId colill)c,ns;ttcd WVII tliorlCI1 r r ~ \ l ) o l l ( l ( ~ i lhat1 1 x 5 t not appro\ r d coiltract Ix)forc, it \\-;IS d i n w J. HOLDERMAS, For labor and inaterials furiiishetl to the State. the claimant initiall). filed a clairii in this caiisc for the aiilount of $2,498.78. Subseqiientl!., the ad daiiinuui \\.as redmwl to $2,253.75. because the original coinplaint contained certain items for which clniinant apparentl!. had been paid.

Claimant had originall!- contracted \\.it11 the Illinois Building Aiithorit!. to \\-ark at the 60-bo,- Forestrj. Canlp in IIizon Springs, Illinois. That contract \\.ark \.i.as cornl>leted bj. the claim:int and full^^ paid for bl- the State. This claiin is based on extra \vork donc at the reqiiest of one John Lo\.elock of the Ilepartnient of Corrections \\.ho \\-as Administrati\-e Assistant to the Siq)er\.isor of Forestr!. Caln1)s.

The record contains a letter from Peter H. Hensingt.r, Ilirector of the Ilepartment of Corrections, addressetl to the Attorney General’s office, indicating that the Siipcn-isor of Forestr). reconimendetl payinelit of the claiin basecl on \ did billing and due to the fact that the work \\’as not part of the original IRA contract.

Further, there is in the record a cop\. of ;I letter frolii Charles hlartini, Coordinating Architect, aclclressc.d to Albert Paga, State Siipen+iiig Architect, explaining that the IBA coiilcl not pay the bill since it hac1 not apl,ro\.ecl thc additional \vork prior to the time it \\.as done, and becaiisc. the change order \\-as submitted ufter the \\-ark \\-as conipleted. It appears, hoit-ex-er, that the \vork done by claiiiiant \\-as in the nature of an emergent!.. The facilit), \\.as needed to accomniodate bo!zs vrho were coming in to the Camp Clainiant \\’as on the job, bo!.s \\-ere coming in, and there was no \\-a). to feed them or \vas11 their clothes \vithout the additional \\-ark finished by claiinant.

Respondent acknon.lcdgt.s the merits of this claiiii.

[*354] I

However, in analyzing the claim, it appears to this Court that, in the first instance, clairriant was lax in inclnding iteiiis I for which he had previously been paid. In addition, the computation of the clair11 contains an item for Supervision at 25% and Insiirance and Taxes at 20%,but nowhere in the testimony is there. any evidence to support these iteiiis as being p-oper. If these were proper, clairriant should havc submitted proof to substantiate their incl~ision.There was testimony offered in support of the 15%for Overhead and 10%for Profit as being reasonable and customary charges.

Also, it is noted in the itemization of the claim, the 25% amount for Sripervision is stated at the same figure as thc 20%amount for Insurance and Taxes. Thus, the claim is a bit casual in its original inception and in its final form. r , I his Court believes clainiant is entitled to be compensated; and based on the records, we are allowing the following: Cost of tiiatc.ri;tls ................................ s 353.62 Labor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ......................... 952.00 ‘rota1 ......................................... $l,:305,62 O v c r l i c w l 15%’........................................... 195.78

Total ......................................... $1.501.40

Profit 10%.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150.14 7 ‘ ~ ) t dA l l o \ \ . ( ~ I................................. Pdl.fi5I.Fi4 Claim allowed in the amoimt of $1,651.54.

(No. 60.36-C~laiiri;int :I\\ ;irtlrd $442.52.)

FS SERVICES, INC.,Claimant, os. STATE OF ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT, Respondent.

Opiniori f i l c d h.lrrrch 24, 1972.

ILLINOIS AGRICUL~TURALASSOCIATION AND AFFILIATED

COMPANIES,for Claimant.

WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General; WILLIAM E. WEBBER, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

[*355] ( No . 6119-Clailii;unt ;iwarded $l7.XX0.00.)

ALL WEATHER COURTS, INC., Claimant, us. THEH OARD OF RECENCY OF THE RECENCY ~JNIVERSITIES SYSTEM, ILLINOIS STATE: ~JNIVERSITY,

Respondent

Opiniori f i / d March 24. 1972.

ALL WEATr-IER C OURTS , INC., Clairnant, pro se, M ARKOWITZ , LAWRENCE, LENZ & JENNINGS, Attorney for Illinois State IJniversity, and PAUL E. MATHIAS,Attorney for Hoard of Regents, for Respondent. u/)/Jro/)rj~/fjo/i.

CONTI~AC:TS-/~I/JSC,(/ \\’hcn tlicl :il)l)r(il)ri:ltioiI l r oil i wl1ic.11;I claini shoriltl h;iv(b brc,n p;iitl h n s lal)s(~l.thc Coiirt \\,ill cwtcr i in :iu.itr(I tor t l i c s amount dur c l a i i i l i i i it .

HOLDERMAN, J .

1 1 ~ 1 1 1 t12-11 1 . IO.) (No. ~ 0 ~ 5 6 - ~ ~ l ~ i i 1:i\v;irtl(d CohmuTEn A IRLINES , INC., An Iowa Corporation, Claimant, us.

STATE OF ILLINOIS, VARIOUS AGENCIES, Respondent.

Ophjoii filed AlorcA 24. 1972.

NICHOLAS G. MANOS,Attorney for Claiinant.

W ILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General; S AUL R . WEXLEH, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

CoNTRAC~s-/[r/)sc,t/ ~ ~ ~ ) ~ ) r ~ J / ) r i\\lien c / f if Jtlic i l . ~ii)i~roi)ri~itioli froiii w l i i c l i ;I claim shoriltl havc hwn paid has lal)scd. thc Coiirt \vi11 cwtcr iiii a t v d frir t l i c . amount dric~cl;iim;int.

P ERLIN, C . J .

[*356] 356 1 (\(I. 6127-C:I;ii111;11it;i\v;irdcd SH7.24.43.) ~ COI‘STYOF COOK. Clairiiant. G.Y. STATE OF ILLISOIS, Respondent.

Opinioit fib,(/ Jlnrc~h24. N i 2 . I EDWARD ~IASRAHAS, State’s AttorneJ-of Cook Coun\ 7 .

t!-. for C1,i’ ‘ llllant. \\.ILLI.AM J. SCOTT, .?ittorne!- General, for Respondent.

JVVF:\IIJ: C , ’ o ~ . i ~ - I - ~ / ~ , / ~ / tr/’i~rc’/”’icrtitifi. ~,~~~/ \\-licw claiiti;int iiiciirnt(1 obligations a\ ;I i1l;itti.r 11f In\\ . ;iritl \\-livrc, ~ i i ~ i ~ r o i ) r i ~ it i\\i )ii\ i i tlv1)1c*tcd prioi- t i l claim;unt’\ filincr for r~~iiiiI,iir\c~iiic~iit.ai1 a\\-;ird \ \ - ~ i i i k l h v tvitvrcd.

PERIJS. C.J. r , I his cmiw coining on to be heard on the Joint Stipiilation of thc) partics hcreto. and the Court being hill!. ad\.iscd in thc preiiiises; , THIS COk’Rl FISIIS that this claim is for salaries of eInplo!.ces of the staff of the Jin-enile Court. \\-herein the State is obligated b!. Ch. 37, Sec. 706-7, Ill.Re\-.Stat, 1969, to coinpensate the counties for such expenditures, that such obligations \\.ere incurred as a iiiatter of la\\-. ancl that the appropriation \vas c1el)leted prior to the claiinant’s filing for reiinbursement .

I 1 IS HEKEHY ORIIEREI> that the siim of $87,244.45 be a\\-artletl to claimant in fill1 satisfaction of an!. aucl all d State of Illinois under the a h o \ ~ claims ~ ~ r c w ~ n toc ~the captioned caiise.

[*357] WOSEWOOD \ I A so R . Isc.,A Corporation, Claimant. G.S. ST.ATEOF ILLISOIS, DEPARTVEST O F \IEST.AL HEALTH.Hespoiitlent.

O / t ~ t l ~ tfilctl Ifl \rtir(~lt 21. 1872.

ROSEWOOD 1 1 ~ x 0IKC., ~ . Claiii~ant.pro w.

Opitiiorr filcrl .\lnrch 24. l X 2 .

GEORGEHERRXIASS

ASD COXIPASY, Claiinant, pro SP. \\'ILLIASI J. SCOTT, A ttorne!. General: SAULK. \\'EXLER.

Assis tan t '4 ttorne), General , for Respondent.

Claimant, C.F. BOARDOF REGESTS01; THE

I\'. I\'. GROTECOSIPAIVY, REGESCY L'SIVERSITY SYSTEM ~ SASGAXIOS ST.ATE t.TSIVk:RSITY.

Respondent .

[*358] ( No . 6.%S-(Xiiiii;iiit i i \ \ . : i r t l ( ~ l pd217.W.) GREAT LAKES INSURANCE CORPORATION OF M'ISCONSIN, ( : ~ ~ l i l l l ~ l l l t , t?S. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Hesi)ondent.

Opiiiioii f i l i ~ lAlirriA 24, 1972.

FRISCH,I ~ U D E K , SLATTERY AN D DENNY, Attorney for C laii iiant .

WILLIAM J . SCOTT, Attorney General; W ILLIAM E. WEBBER, Assistant At torn ey General, for I< c>sland cw t.

[*359] I

359 I

?1 ~x~s-ocjoi~cc!/m~!~t/. . \\'hrrc claiiir:iiit ovc"rl):iitl a t l \ ~ ; i i i c c ~I)ri\d(ngc' l t;i\ payment, an a\vartl \voiild I > c cntercd for o\rrp;iyiiient.

P ERLIN, C.J. This caiise coming on to be heard on the Joint Stipiilation of the parties hereto and the Court being fully adviscd in the premises; THIS COURT FINDS that this claiun is filed pnrsiiaint to Ch. 37, Sec. 8(f),Para. 439.8(f), 111. Rev. Stat., 1.969,and arises by reason of claimant having overpaid advanced privilege tax payment as corriputed on line 24, age 4 of the 1970 Privilege l'ax Statement, as per Ch. 73, See. 1024, 111.

Rev. Stat., 1969, and no new or novel questions of law are presented.

IT IS HEREBY ORI>EREI>that the si1111of $217.94 bc. awarded clairnant in full satisfaction of any and all clairiis presented to the State of Illinois under the above captionr~l cause.

(No. 6-348-Claiiiiaiit :i\vardcd $4.567.00.)

BONCICARTAGE, INC., Claimant, us. STATE OF I LLINOIS, I ~ V I S I O N 0 1 WATERWAYS, Kespondent.

Opittiofi f i l d AlorcA 24, 1972 V INCENT ALFIERI,Attorney for Claiiiiant.

WILLIAM J, SCOTT, Attorney General; SAUL, 13. \ V E X I , ~ ~ H , Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

C O N T R A C T S - ~~lU ~ j~/ jS~ ~ ~ J / j r i ~ \f \/ k ) f tthc i ~w . i to ~\\+icli ~ i i ) ~ ) r ( i ~ ) r ~ ifrciiii ~ ;I claim shoiild ha\rc hccm I)iiitl hiis I;ipsc~l.the Court will e n t c r i i i i m ~ : i i - t l l or tlrc. amount tlrw rl;iii~i;ciit. , C .J .

PERLIN

( No . 6.3M-CIaiiiiant :trr~:trtlt~d$091.tN).)

THE CENTER-SISTERS OF THE GOOD SHEPHERD, Claiinant, us. S r Am [*360] OF ILLINOIS, I)EPART\IEST OF CHILDREX ASD F h \ I l L Y SERVICES,

Responclent. I

(So. 6363-Cl:iiiiiant a\x-ardctl SlM.12.)

A MERICAS IXSTITUTEOF ESCISEERISG ASD ~ E C H S O L O G Y , ISC..

Claimant, G.Y. STATE OF ILLISOIS, DIVISIOX O F \'OCATIOSAL REHABILITATIOS. Respondent.

OpitiiotI filcd .\lrircA 24. 19i2.

AXIERICAX

INSTITUTE OF ENGINEERIXC: AX'D TECHSOLOCX.

I x c . , Claimant, pro se.

\\'ILLIAXI J . SCOTT, Attornej- General: S AUL K. \\.EXLER, Assistant Attome!. General, for Respondent.

CosTRAns-kr),scr/ ri/,/,,o/1ricitio,i.\\.hen the qii)ropriatiit~~ fro111 \\.tiich i l claim should ha\-(. hem p i t l h;is l a ~ is ~thv ~ l .Coiirt \vi11 cwtvr i in a\vard for t l r c s amount drie cliiiiiiant.

P ERLIN , C.J. ( S 0 . 6.%9-CIairiia II t ;i\vartlcd S3.1X.25. ) CAW COXTRACTORS E Q UIPMENT C o v P As Y , Claimant , us. ST.ATE

OF

I LLINOIS , DIVISION O F H IGHWAYS , Respondent.

OjJitiioti filcd \forth 24. 1972.

EQUIPNENTCOMPANY, CAWCONTRACTORS Clainiant, pro se.

[*361] WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General; SAUL R. WEXLER, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

C O N T R A & S - ~ ~approprdution.

I.W~ \Vhen the appropriation from which i~ claim should have been paid has lapseed, the Court will enter an a\vard for thc amount due claimant.

PERLIN, C.J. ( No . 6372-Clairnant awarded $510.M.) ROBERT H. SCANLAN, Claimant, os. STATE OF ILLINOIS,

DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL

GOVERNMENT OFFICES, Respondent.

Opinion filed March 24, 1972.

ROBERT H . SCANLAN, Claimant, pro se.

WILLIAM J. SCOTT, Attorney General; SAUL R. WEXLER, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

CoNTRAcrs-kqJsed appropriation. When the appropriation from which il claim should have been paid has lapsed, the Court will enter an award tor the amount due clainiant.

PERLIN, C.J.