Lee v. Department of Corrections

52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 320
CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois
DecidedAugust 27, 1999
DocketNos. 96-CC-1598, 97-CC-0404 cons.
StatusPublished

This text of 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 320 (Lee v. Department of Corrections) 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
Lee v. Department of Corrections, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 320 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1999).

Opinion

ORDER

Patchett, J.

This cause coming to. be heard upon the Claimants motion for transfer to another court, due notice having been given, and this Court being fully advised, finds that the Claimant is requesting that this Court transfer the above lost property claims to another Court so that he might have a trial by jury.

Under the United States Constitution juries are required in “suits at common law.” (Amend. VII, United States Constitution.) At common law, states have sovereign immunity and cannot be sued.

In Illinois, the State may be a defendant in a suit only to the extent allowed by the General Assembly. Art. XIII, Sec. 4, Illinois Constitution.

The General Assembly has stated that except in the Court of Claims or in actions under the Illinois Public Labor Relations Act the “State of Illinois shall not be made a defendant or party in any Court.” 745 ILCS 5/1 et seq.

Therefore, this Court is without power to transfer the present claims to another Court, as no other Court has jurisdiction to hear the Claimants lost property claims.

It is therefore, ordered that the Claimants motions are denied.

This cause comes on to be heard on the Respondents motion for summary judgment, due notice having been given, and the Court being advised, finds:

Respondent filed the motion at bar on October 31, 1997. No response to the motion was filed and the Court granted the motion two months later. Claimant filed an untimely objection stating that he had been relocated to the Cook County Jail. On April 20,1998, the order was vacated and the Claimant' was given 60 days to respond. Over a year has passed and Claimant has not responded.

It is therefore ordered that the Respondents motion is again granted and this claim is dismissed.

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

Related

§ 5/1
Illinois 745 § 5/1

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-v-department-of-corrections-ilclaimsct-1999.