Anderson v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Anderson v. State

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 643, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 348

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedOctober 23, 1978

DocketNo. 76-CC-2462

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 643 (Anderson v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Claims of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Anderson v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 643, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 348 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause coming to be heard on the motion of the Respondent to dismiss due notice being given and the Court being fully advised;

Finds that the complaint for compensation for time unjustly served in prison is brought within the jurisdiction of the Court as set forth in Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 37, Sec. 439.8 (C), 1975 which requires as a prerequisite for recovery that the Claimant “receive a pardon from the Governor stating that such pardon is issued on the ground of innocence of the crime for which they were imprisoned.” Allegation and proof of the existence of such a pardon is a prerequisite to stating a cause of action under such statute. See, Mostafa v. State, 30 Ill.Ct.Cl. 567, 569 (1975) and Harpstreith v. State, 30 Ill.Ct.Cl. 546, 550 (1975). In the instant case the complaint fails to even allege the existence of any pardon being issued to the Claimant. Such failure to prove the existence of a pardon results in the failure of Claimant’s complaint to state a cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the motion of the Respondent to dismiss be and the same is hereby granted and the complaint of Kenneth Anderson is hereby dismissed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This cause coming to be heard on the motion of the Respondent to dismiss due notice being given and the Court being fully advised;

Finds that the complaint for compensation for time unjustly served in prison is brought within the jurisdiction of the Court as set forth in Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 37, Sec. 439.8 (C), 1975 which requires as a prerequisite for recovery that the Claimant “receive a pardon from the Governor stating that such pardon is issued on the ground of innocence of the crime for which they were imprisoned.” Allegation and proof of the existence of such a pardon is a prerequisite to stating a cause of action under such statute. See, Mostafa v. State, 30 Ill.Ct.Cl. 567, 569 (1975) and Harpstreith v. State, 30 Ill.Ct.Cl. 546, 550 (1975). In the instant case the complaint fails to even allege the existence of any pardon being issued to the Claimant. Such failure to prove the existence of a pardon results in the failure of Claimant’s complaint to state a cause of action.

It is hereby ordered that the motion of the Respondent to dismiss be and the same is hereby granted and the complaint of Kenneth Anderson is hereby dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 643, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 348, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/anderson-v-state-ilclaimsct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack