Osher v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Osher v. State

34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 274, 1981 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 50

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedApril 15, 1981

DocketNo. 81-CC-0630

StatusPublished

This text of 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 274 (Osher 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

Osher v. State, 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 274, 1981 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 50 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Roe, C. J.

This claim arose out of several alleged acts of negligence on the part of the State which were said to have caused Claimant severe and permanent personal injuries. On December 10, 1980, we entered an order granting a motion by Respondent to dismiss on grounds that the notice requirements of section 22 — 1 (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22 — 1), were not complied with.

Claimant moved to vacate said order and, in support of his motion, argued that a waiver might have occurred, and requested an additional 45 days to ascertain its existence. Respondent objected on two grounds: the first attaching the timeliness of Claimant’s motion to vacate, and the second being directed to Claimant’s argument for a waiver.

We do not find it necessary to address the first objection by Respondent. Even if we assume that the motion to vacate was filed on time and that insurance existed, we have held in Elliston v. State of Illinois, No. 76-CC-0555 (filed June 12, 1978), that the waiver relating to municipalities is inapplicable to the State.

Accordingly, Claimant’s motion to vacate is hereby denied.

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

Roe, C. J.

This claim arose out of several alleged acts of negligence on the part of the State which were said to have caused Claimant severe and permanent personal injuries. On December 10, 1980, we entered an order granting a motion by Respondent to dismiss on grounds that the notice requirements of section 22 — 1 (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22 — 1), were not complied with.

Claimant moved to vacate said order and, in support of his motion, argued that a waiver might have occurred, and requested an additional 45 days to ascertain its existence. Respondent objected on two grounds: the first attaching the timeliness of Claimant’s motion to vacate, and the second being directed to Claimant’s argument for a waiver.

We do not find it necessary to address the first objection by Respondent. Even if we assume that the motion to vacate was filed on time and that insurance existed, we have held in Elliston v. State of Illinois, No. 76-CC-0555 (filed June 12, 1978), that the waiver relating to municipalities is inapplicable to the State.

Accordingly, Claimant’s motion to vacate is hereby denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 274, 1981 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 50, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/osher-v-state-ilclaimsct-1981.