Midwest Construction Co. v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Midwest Construction Co. v. State

45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 354, 1992 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 255

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedDecember 14, 1992

DocketNo. 91-CC-3926

StatusPublished

This text of 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 354 (Midwest Construction Co. 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

Midwest Construction Co. v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 354, 1992 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 255 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

AGREED ORDER

Montana, C.J.

This cause coming on to be heard pursuant to the agreed motion for the entry of judgment of the parties for the entry of a consent judgment and the Court having been apprised of the parties’ liquidating agreement dated September 25,1992, filed herein with the agreed motion, the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, and the Court not being obligated to recognize the agreement of the parties but finding their agreement to be appropriate and based upon Respondent’s representation that such agreement is fair and reasonable and is in the best interest of the State of Illinois and based upon Claimants representation that it understands it is the intention of the parties to the agreement that in the event of the dismissal of the A/E action, as defined in the agreement, based upon a determination and adjudication on the merits of the State’s and Epstein Civil Engineering, Inc.’s, respective rights and obligations under the A/E agreement, as defined in the agreement, then Claimant may not reinstate the A/E action against the State;

Now therefore, it is hereby ordered that judgment is entered against the Respondent and in favor of the Claimant in the amount of $6,002,615.13, subject to the terms and conditions of the liquidating agreement.

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

AGREED ORDER

Montana, C.J.

This cause coming on to be heard pursuant to the agreed motion for the entry of judgment of the parties for the entry of a consent judgment and the Court having been apprised of the parties’ liquidating agreement dated September 25,1992, filed herein with the agreed motion, the Court being otherwise fully advised in the premises, and the Court not being obligated to recognize the agreement of the parties but finding their agreement to be appropriate and based upon Respondent’s representation that such agreement is fair and reasonable and is in the best interest of the State of Illinois and based upon Claimants representation that it understands it is the intention of the parties to the agreement that in the event of the dismissal of the A/E action, as defined in the agreement, based upon a determination and adjudication on the merits of the State’s and Epstein Civil Engineering, Inc.’s, respective rights and obligations under the A/E agreement, as defined in the agreement, then Claimant may not reinstate the A/E action against the State;

Now therefore, it is hereby ordered that judgment is entered against the Respondent and in favor of the Claimant in the amount of $6,002,615.13, subject to the terms and conditions of the liquidating agreement.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 354, 1992 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 255, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/midwest-construction-co-v-state-ilclaimsct-1992.