Carter v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Carter v. State

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 231, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 262

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedMay 24, 1978

DocketNo. 77-CC-1076

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 231 (Carter 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

Carter v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 231, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 262 (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 Claimant has received an amount in excess of the statutory limit on damages allowable in this Court on the basis of a loan agreement executed by a joint tortfeasor in favor of the Claimant. The Claimant is entitled to one satisfaction and the recovery of an amount in excess of the statutory limit on damages in this Court is a bar to further recovery of damages in this Court. See, Powers v. State, 28 Ill.Ct. Cl. 130, 131 (1972); William v. State, 25 Ill.Ct.Cl. 249, 255 (1965); and Laboda v. State, 24 Ill.Ct.Cl. 172, 176 (1961).

It is hereby ordered that the motion of the Respondent to dismiss be, and the same is hereby granted and the cause is 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 Claimant has received an amount in excess of the statutory limit on damages allowable in this Court on the basis of a loan agreement executed by a joint tortfeasor in favor of the Claimant. The Claimant is entitled to one satisfaction and the recovery of an amount in excess of the statutory limit on damages in this Court is a bar to further recovery of damages in this Court. See, Powers v. State, 28 Ill.Ct. Cl. 130, 131 (1972); William v. State, 25 Ill.Ct.Cl. 249, 255 (1965); and Laboda v. State, 24 Ill.Ct.Cl. 172, 176 (1961).

It is hereby ordered that the motion of the Respondent to dismiss be, and the same is hereby granted and the cause is dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 231, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/carter-v-state-ilclaimsct-1978.