Xerox Corp. v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Xerox Corp. v. State

35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 312, 1982 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 54

CourtCourt of Claims of Illinois

DecidedFebruary 11, 1982

DocketNo. 80-CC-1691

StatusPublished

This text of 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 312 (Xerox Corp. 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

Xerox Corp. v. State, 35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 312, 1982 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 54 (Ill. Super. Ct. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Roe, C.J.

This matter coming on to be heard upon the petition of Respondent to reopen the record herein, and it appearing to the Court that Claimant has received due notice of this petition, and the Court being fully advised in the premises;

The record in this matter indicates that this claim was filed on March 27, 1980. The Attorney General requested a departmental report from the Department of Children and Family Services approximately two weeks latér. Sixty days having passed, the claim was assigned to a commissioner who set a hearing date nearly five months in advance. The case was then continued until March 3, 1981, at which time the commissioner indicated it was to finally be disposed of. However, it was continued again until June 24, 1981, well over a year after the claim was filed.

Present at the June 24, 1981, hearing were two assistant attorneys general and Claimant’s lawyer and the commissioner. A departmental report was still unavailable. The commissioner filed his recommendation anyway.

Nearly one month after the last scheduled hearing, Respondent filed the petition to reopen the record to introduce the departmental report which was alleged to have been received approximately two weeks after the last hearing. Said petition states at item No. 4 that the departmental report is attached to the petition. However, neither the Court nor the clerk’s office has ever received it. It is now going on two years since this claim was filed.

It is hereby ordered that the petition of Respondent be, and hereby is, denied and Claimant is awarded the sum of $203.61 in full satisfaction of this claim.

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

Roe, C.J.

This matter coming on to be heard upon the petition of Respondent to reopen the record herein, and it appearing to the Court that Claimant has received due notice of this petition, and the Court being fully advised in the premises;

The record in this matter indicates that this claim was filed on March 27, 1980. The Attorney General requested a departmental report from the Department of Children and Family Services approximately two weeks latér. Sixty days having passed, the claim was assigned to a commissioner who set a hearing date nearly five months in advance. The case was then continued until March 3, 1981, at which time the commissioner indicated it was to finally be disposed of. However, it was continued again until June 24, 1981, well over a year after the claim was filed.

Present at the June 24, 1981, hearing were two assistant attorneys general and Claimant’s lawyer and the commissioner. A departmental report was still unavailable. The commissioner filed his recommendation anyway.

Nearly one month after the last scheduled hearing, Respondent filed the petition to reopen the record to introduce the departmental report which was alleged to have been received approximately two weeks after the last hearing. Said petition states at item No. 4 that the departmental report is attached to the petition. However, neither the Court nor the clerk’s office has ever received it. It is now going on two years since this claim was filed.

It is hereby ordered that the petition of Respondent be, and hereby is, denied and Claimant is awarded the sum of $203.61 in full satisfaction of this claim.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 Ill. Ct. Cl. 312, 1982 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 54, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/xerox-corp-v-state-ilclaimsct-1982.