Menchaca v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Menchaca v. State

33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 138, 1979 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 39

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedNovember 7, 1979

DocketNo. 76-CC-2474

StatusPublished

This text of 33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 138 (Menchaca 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

Menchaca v. State, 33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 138, 1979 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 39 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This cause coming to be heard on the motion of the Respondent, the State of Illinois, for summary judgment, due notice being given to the parties and the Claimant not filing any counter-affidavit or answer thereto and the Court being fully advised:

Finds that the unrefuted evidence in support of the motion does not sustain the Claimant’s allegation in the amended complaint that the area in question was hazardous, dangerous or defective. The Court finds that the Respondent was under no duty to patrol, guard or fence in natural water courses. See, Zorn v. Bellrose (1959), 22 Illinois App. 2d 331, 160 N.E.2d 685; Mindeman v. Sanitary District of Chicago (1925), 317 Ill. 529,148 N.E. 304; Adams v. Brookwood Country Club (1958), 16 Ill. App. 2d 363, 148 N.E.2d 39. There are no material facts in dispute and therefore Respondent is entitled to judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be and is hereby granted.

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, the State of Illinois, for summary judgment, due notice being given to the parties and the Claimant not filing any counter-affidavit or answer thereto and the Court being fully advised:

Finds that the unrefuted evidence in support of the motion does not sustain the Claimant’s allegation in the amended complaint that the area in question was hazardous, dangerous or defective. The Court finds that the Respondent was under no duty to patrol, guard or fence in natural water courses. See, Zorn v. Bellrose (1959), 22 Illinois App. 2d 331, 160 N.E.2d 685; Mindeman v. Sanitary District of Chicago (1925), 317 Ill. 529,148 N.E. 304; Adams v. Brookwood Country Club (1958), 16 Ill. App. 2d 363, 148 N.E.2d 39. There are no material facts in dispute and therefore Respondent is entitled to judgment.

It is hereby ordered that the Respondent’s motion for summary judgment be and is hereby granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 138, 1979 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 39, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menchaca-v-state-ilclaimsct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack