County of St. Clair v. State

37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 297, 1984 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 50
Court of Claims of Illinois·Decided October 31, 1984·No. No. 84-CC-1922·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Raucci, J.

This cause comes on to be heard on motion of the Respondent to dismiss the Claimant’s claim of $953.01 due to 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 is subject to the ordinary restriction that public monies must be appropriated by the General Assembly in order to be expended.

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 (i.e. to “reserve” appropriations) being easily ascertainable, this Court has no alternative but to deny the claim.

Claimant, subsequent to Respondent’s motion, filed its motion to amend complaint. Because of the disposition of Respondent’s motion, Claimant’s motion is moot.

It is therefore ordered that the claim be dismissed, with prejudice.

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

County of St. Clair v. State, 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 297, 1984 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 50 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1984).

37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 297 (County of St. Clair v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

DePaul University v. State
39 Ill. Ct. Cl. 158 (Court of Claims of Illinois, 1987)