Bowman v. State

43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 202, 1986 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 63
CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois
DecidedJanuary 13, 1986
DocketNo. 86-CC-0506
StatusPublished

This text of 43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 202 (Bowman 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
Bowman v. State, 43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 202, 1986 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 63 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1986).

Opinion

ORDER

Raucci, J.

This cause coining on to be heard on the Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and Claimants’ response thereto, and the Court being fully advised in the premises,

Finds, that the claim for indemnity and/or contribution accrued upon the filing of the complaint of Howard L. Shelton on October 14, 1983, in the circuit court for Madison County.

The action in this Court was filed on September 26, 1985, which was within the two (2) years statute of limitations, and the Court further,

Finds, that the Release and Indemnity provisions of the “Supplementary Provisions” of the “Contractual Services Agreement” does not, by express terms, indemnify Respondent against its own negligence, and therefore the Claimant states a cause of action, and the Court further,

Finds, that Claimants’ action is not one for personal injuries and therefore Claimants were not required to file a notice of intent and the Court further,

Finds, that the action is not barred by the fact that Howard L. Shelton received worker’s compensation benefits. See Doyle v. Rhodes (1984), 101 Ill. 2d 1, 461 N.E.2d 382.

It is therefore ordered, that the motion to dismiss is denied.

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

This matter coming before the Court upon stipulation for dismissal signed on Claimants’ behalf by their attorney, Stephen J. Maasen, and signed on behalf of Respondent by Assistant Attorney General Phillip McQuillan, and the Court being fully advised in the premises therein,

It is therefore ordered that Claimants’ cause of action in the above-styled matter is dismissed with prejudice to the Claimants and at the cost of the Claimants.

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

Related

Doyle v. Rhodes
461 N.E.2d 382 (Illinois Supreme Court, 1984)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 202, 1986 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 63, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bowman-v-state-ilclaimsct-1986.