Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Medley's Movers and Van Lines v. State of Illinois

31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 421 Illinois Court of Claims Filed October 1, 1976 No. 73-13
Disposition: (Nos. 73-13, 73-14, 73-54, 73-457, 73-469, 74-243, and Award: $11,708.55 Agency: Department of Public Aid
Cite as: Medley's Movers and Van Lines v. State of Illinois, 31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 421 (1976)
Legacy General 31 awarded 1970s Medley's Movers and Van Lines v. State of Illinois 31 Ill. Ct. Cl. 421 October 1, 1976 (Nos. 73-13, 73-14, 73-54, 73-457, 73-469, 74-243, and /opinions/v31-p0469-1/

(Nos. 73-13, 73-14, 73-54, 73-457, 73-469, 74-243, and 74-244-Consolidated-Claimantawarded $11,708.55.) MEDLEY’SMOVERS AND VAN LINES, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

The claimant sought payment for moving and storage services rendered to public aid recipients under alleged authorization from the Department of Public Aid. The court awarded $11,708.55 based on the respondent's admitted amount in a stipulated departmental report, as the claimant provided no further substantiation.

Claim type: Contract

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

Headnotes

  1. CONTRACTS-St~pUlUtiOn. Claim for services rendered to various recipients of public aid in moving or storing household goods pursuant to authorization by the Department of Public Aid. Stipulation as to facts and amount of damages sustained. Award entered for $1 1,708.55, based on stipulation.

These seven consolidated claims seek payment for services allegedly rendered to various recipients of public aid in moving or storing their household goods pursuant to some type of alleged authorization by the Department of Public Aid. I The seven claims purport to cover some 404 separate moving contracts over a three-year period for which Claimant contends he was never paid for various reasons. He disputes many of the reasons stated in a detailed departmental report which was nevertheless entered into evidence by stipulation as a Joint Group Exhibit No. 1, and is accepted by the court as prima facie evidence of the facts set forth therein, in accordance with Rule 14 of the court.

The said departmental report filed by the Respondent listed each separate moving contract alleged by the Claimant together with the amount claimed, and the amount Respondent admits was actually due the Claimant according to departmental records, as follows: Amount owed per

Claim No. Amount Claimed Departmental Report

73-CC-13 $ 7,315.74 $ 1,170.00

73-CC-14 6,536.35 1,076.25

73-cc-54 7,882.62 1,592.50 73-cc-457 8,419.74 655.00

73-CC-469 9,600.87 2,253.05

74-CC-243 7,882.62 3,230.75

74-CC-244 7,621.49 1,731.00

Total Total

claimed $55,259.43 admitted $11,708.55 The above departmental report was submitted into evidence by stipulation as Joint Group Exhibit No. 1.

The Claimant, Howard C. Medley, d/b/a Medley’s Movers and Van Lines, failed to appear at the hearing and offered no evidence to further substantiate his claims in [*423] any amount beyond that acknowledged and admitted by the Respondent.

We notice from the said report that the Department of Public Aid recommended that about three-fourths of the separate moving claims be disallowed for reasons which the Court considers good and sufficient.

On the basis of the stipulation entered into, it is the Court’s opinion that there is due the Claimant in the above entitled seven consolidated cases the sum of $11,708.55.

Claimant is hereby awarded the total sum of Eleven Thousand Seven Hundred Eight and 55/100 Dollars ($11,708.55) as full payment for all services mentioned in all of these seven consolidated claims.

Official volume 31 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1976 – July 1, 1975–June 30, 1976; Fiscal Year 1977 – July 1, 1976 – June 30, 1977)  ·  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.