Rogers v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Rogers v. State

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 257, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 265

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedMay 20, 1978

DocketNo. 77-CC-1719

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 257 (Rogers 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

Rogers v. State, 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 257, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 265 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Poch, J.

This cause coming to be heard on the motion of the Respondent for summary judgment, due notice being given and the Court being fully advised:

Finds that complaint seeks recovery for damages caused by minor wards placed with the Claimant by the Department of Children and Family Services. Such recovery is barred because the Department of Children and Family Services is not subject to the provisions of Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 70, Sec. 52(1), 1975, excluding liability under the Parental Responsibility Law where the minor is under custody order under the “Juvenile Court Act.” See, Vallery v. State, 31 Ill.Ct.Cl. 187.

Based on this, it is hereby ordered that the motion of the Respondent for summary judgment, be and the same is hereby granted.

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

Poch, J.

This cause coming to be heard on the motion of the Respondent for summary judgment, due notice being given and the Court being fully advised:

Finds that complaint seeks recovery for damages caused by minor wards placed with the Claimant by the Department of Children and Family Services. Such recovery is barred because the Department of Children and Family Services is not subject to the provisions of Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 70, Sec. 52(1), 1975, excluding liability under the Parental Responsibility Law where the minor is under custody order under the “Juvenile Court Act.” See, Vallery v. State, 31 Ill.Ct.Cl. 187.

Based on this, it is hereby ordered that the motion of the Respondent for summary judgment, be and the same is hereby granted.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 257, 1978 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 265, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogers-v-state-ilclaimsct-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack