Image Response v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Image Response v. State

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 209, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 43

Court of Claims of Illinois·Decided April 7, 1978·No. No. 77-CC-0661·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause having come before the Court on the motion of Respondent, and Claimant having failed to respond, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, find that the Claimant, as set forth in Respondent’ s motion to dismiss, failed to attach the contract for services and the joining of two separate agencies in the same complaint is in violation of Rule 5(c) and Rule 5(d)(3) respectively, therefore, this claim should be dismissed according to Rule 9 of the Court of Claims.

It is therefore ordered that this claim be, and the same is hereby denied.

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

Per Curiam.

This cause having come before the Court on the motion of Respondent, and Claimant having failed to respond, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, find that the Claimant, as set forth in Respondent’ s motion to dismiss, failed to attach the contract for services and the joining of two separate agencies in the same complaint is in violation of Rule 5(c) and Rule 5(d)(3) respectively, therefore, this claim should be dismissed according to Rule 9 of the Court of Claims.

It is therefore ordered that this claim be, and the same is hereby denied.

Image Response v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 209, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 43 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1978).

Pincite

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 209 (Image Response v. State) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related