CITY OF CHICAGO, Claimant, v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent
Case summary
The City of Chicago claimed $13,700.15 for payment despite insufficient appropriated funds at the end of Fiscal Year 1983. The court dismissed the claim because the General Assembly had expressly authorized the reduction of appropriations through contingency reserves, and the court found no alternative but to deny the claim.
Cases cited: Fergus v. Brady (1917), 277 Ill. 273; Rock Island County v. State (1973), 28 Ill. Ct. Cl. 337; Cluvey v. State (1973), 29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 21; Warrior v. Thompson (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 1, 449 N.E.2d 53
AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.
Headnotes
- NEIL F. HARTIGAN, Attorney General (KATHLEEN ~’BRIEN Assistant , Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.
- LAPSEDAPPRoPRIATloNs-appropriated funds reduced by “contingency resemes”-claim dismissed. A city’s claim against the State was dismissed notwithstanding the State’s stipulation agreeing to payment even though sufficient appropriated funds were not available, and the city’s contention that the claim should be paid because the expenditure was “expressly authorized by law” was rejected, since the appropriated funds had been reduced through the device known as “contingency reserves,” as provided by the Emergency Budget Act, and the Court of Claims was therefore required to deny the claim.
This cause ,comes on to be heard on stipulation of the Respondent to pay the Claimant’s claim of $13,700.15, notwithstanding the fact that sufficient appropriated funds were not available at the end of Fiscal Year 1983 to pay this claim.
Respondent urges us that this expenditure ‘< was expressly authorized by law” and therefore not subject to the ordinary restriction that public monies must be appropriated by the General Assembly in order to be expended.
The “expressly authorized by law” concept has its genesis in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Fergus 2). Bra& (1917), 277 Ill. 273. And following that opinion, this Court has made numerous awards on the basis that they “were expressly authorized [*286] by law.” See Rock Zsland County v. State (1973), 28 Ill.
Ct. C1. 337, and CZuvey 0 . State (1973),29 Ill. Ct. C1. 21.
Unlike the prior cases, the instant case arises because the General Assembly legislated that the funds * previously appropriated be reduced through a device known as “contingency reserves.” This authorization is contained in the Emergency Budget Act (P.A. 82-1038, approved December 1982).
The Act withstood vigorous constitutional attack by a divided Supreme Court of Illinois in Warrior v .
Thompson (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 1,449 N.E.2d 53. “ The specific legislative intent (ie. to reserve” appropriations) being easily ascertainable, this Court has no alternative but to deny the claim.
It is therefore ordered that the claim be dismissed, with prejudice.