{ "id": 2647857, "name": "Sherman H. Skolnick, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles T. Martin, et al., Defendants-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Skolnick v. Martin", "decision_date": "1968-07-22", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 51,438", "first_page": "166", "last_page": "171", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "98 Ill. App. 2d 166" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "253 F2d 59", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 688786 ], "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/253/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "113 NE 620", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.", "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "274 Ill 282", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill.", "case_ids": [ 2408292 ], "year": 1916, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill/274/0282-01" ] }, { "cite": "381 US 926", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 6200937, 6201934, 6201710, 6202127, 6201488, 6201273, 6202335 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/381/0806-01", "/us/381/0806-05", "/us/381/0806-04", "/us/381/0806-06", "/us/381/0806-03", "/us/381/0806-02", "/us/381/0806-07" ] }, { "cite": "203 NE2d 428", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "N.E.2d", "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "32 Ill2d 55", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ill. 2d", "case_ids": [ 2840415 ], "year": 1965, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ill-2d/32/0055-01" ] }, { "cite": "375 US 960", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11785124, 11784936, 11785225, 11785033, 11785356, 11785306 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/375/0960-03", "/us/375/0960-01", "/us/375/0960-04", "/us/375/0960-02", "/us/375/0960-06", "/us/375/0960-05" ] }, { "cite": "375 US 908", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 11766278, 11766412, 11766221, 11766162, 11766105, 11766331, 11766076 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/375/0908-05", "/us/375/0908-07", "/us/375/0908-04", "/us/375/0908-03", "/us/375/0908-02", "/us/375/0908-06", "/us/375/0908-01" ] }, { "cite": "317 F2d 855", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 165213 ], "year": 1963, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/317/0855-01" ] }, { "cite": "58 C 7219", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Cow.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 491, "char_count": 9006, "ocr_confidence": 0.623, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.748950440335654e-08, "percentile": 0.5309996837653469 }, "sha256": "ab67c9e02c299d6895f892753e1d619d647c6e6e8bcc3c1bab2640f0d22991be", "simhash": "1:6ffaf772760ed308", "word_count": 1525 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:27:49.397892+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Sherman H. Skolnick, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles T. Martin, et al., Defendants-Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "MR. JUSTICE ADESKO\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAppellant, as plaintiff in a certain other cause of action in the Circuit Court, No. 58 C 7219, against Arthur Lilly and Charles R. Perrigo, was noticed to appear in the office of Charles T. Martin, attorney for said defendants, on January 7, 1960, at 2:00 p. m., for a discovery deposition on oral interrogatories. He was represented by an attorney who was present together with the appellant\u2019s father and appellant\u2019s court reporter.\nOn January 6, 1965, appellant filed a suit against the appellees to recover damages for alleged injuries he claims to have suffered when on said January 7, 1960, he sat in attorney Martin\u2019s office until 6:20 p. m. In his complaint, appellant alleged that he was forced to sit in the attorney\u2019s office \u201cin a low back, narrow chair with no arm rests of an adequate height for the plaintiff (appellant), a paraplegic with a scoliosis spine, disregarding and ignoring the plaintiff\u2019s protestations.\u201d Said complaint further alleged that said appellees violated appellant\u2019s civil rights and liberties secured to him by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and the State of Illinois, particularly section 1, 14th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States; section 2, Article II of the Illinois Constitution; sections 1981, 1983, 1985(2), (3), 1988 of Title 42, US Code; section 241 of Title 18, US Code; and the pertinent provisions of section 139, chapter 38, Ill Rev Stats 1959.\nAppellant further alleged that as a result he felt faint, suffered constant pain in the back and collapsed, becoming delirious, and thereafter was forced to stay in bed for a period of two weeks, became further paralyzed and crippled incurring expenses for doctor\u2019s fees and medicines. He sought damages in the sum of $200,-000 and exemplary damages for an additional $200,000.\nOn January 26, 1965, appellees Martin, Lilly and Perrigo, moved to dismiss on the ground that this action was not commenced within two years pursuant to section 14 of the Limitations Act (Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 83, \u00a7 15), which provides:\n\u201cActions for damages for an injury to persons, or for false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution, or for a statutory penalty, or for abduction, or for seduction, or for criminal conversation, shall be commenced within two years next after the cause of action accrued.\u201d\nThis motion to dismiss further provided that the appellant alleged the same cause of action in a suit filed on January 4, 1962, in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois which was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. This dismissal was affirmed in the U. S. Court of Appeals, 317 F2d 855 (7th Cir, June 6, 1963). Certiorari was denied, 375 US 908; rehearing denied 375 US 960 (1963).\nAppellees further claimed in said motion that the appellant also alleged the same cause of action in another suit filed by him also on January 4, 1962, in the Superior Court of Cook County, No. 62 S 204. The Superior Court dismissed said suit on March 28, 1962, and the Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal on November 24, 1964. 32 Ill2d 55, 203 NE2d 428, US cert denied 381 US 926 (1965).\nOn February 17, 1965, appellees, Arthur Lilly and Charles R. Perrigo amended their motion to dismiss, claiming that this suit is also barred by a prior judgment pursuant to section 48 of the Civil Practice Act (Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 110, \u00a7 48 (1) (d)) :\n\u201c(d) That the cause of action is barred by a prior judgment.\u201d\nOn April 23, 1965, the trial court having considered the pleadings, briefs and arguments of the appellant and counsel for the appellees, sustained the motion to dismiss and entered the following order:\n\u201cThis cause coming on to be heard on defendants\u2019 motion to dismiss pursuant to Ch 83 \u00a7 15 and the court being fully advised in the premises:\n\u201cIt is hereby ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and plaintiff asking leave to file an amended complaint;\n\u201cIt is hereby ordered that leave is denied and it is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed at plaintiff\u2019s cost, that the plaintiff take nothing and defendants go hence without day.\u201d\nOn June 2, 1965, the trial court denied appellant\u2019s motion for rehearing and to vacate the order of April 23, 1965. Notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois was filed on July 30, 1965. The Supreme Court in transferring the appeal to the Appellate Court made the following pronouncement:\n\u201cThe issue in this case is whether plaintiff\u2019s complaint was barred by a two year statute of limitations or whether the five year statute was controlling.\n\u201cThere is no substantial constitutional issue presented, and the motion by appellees is allowed. The cause is transferred to the Appellate Court for the First District.\u201d\nAppellant contends that the instant case comes within the provisions of \u201ccivil actions not otherwise provided for\u201d of section 16, chapter 38, of the Illinois Revised Statutes, which permits the commencement of a suit within 5 years next after the cause of action accrued. We do not agree with this contention.\nAppellant\u2019s complaint is an action for personal injuries and section 15, chapter 83, Illinois Revised Statutes provides that such actions \u201cshall be commenced within two years next after the cause of action accrued.\u201d His action is not a civil action not otherwise provided for as claimed by appellant. The Illinois Supreme Court in Handtoffski v. Chicago Traction Co., 274 Ill 282, 113 NE 620, (1916), said at page 286:\n\u201cAgain said section 14 (present Chapter 83, Sec 15) is a particular provision designed to control actions for damages because of or on account of an injury to the person, regardless of the form of action, and it must prevail over the more general provision made in section 15, (present Ch 83, Sec 16) , and be treated as an exception to that general provision.\u201d\nAppellant\u2019s complaint also alleges that his civil rights and liberties were violated. The U. S. Court of Appeals disposed of this contention in Skolnick v. Martin, supra, a suit identical with the complaint in this case. At page 857, the U. S. Court of Appeals said:\n\u201cThere was no denial of rights under the Fourteenth Amendment or a claim stated upon which relief could be granted under the Federal Civil Rights Acts.\u201d\nThe same U. S. Court of Appeals concluded that appellant\u2019s alleged action is one for injury to the person and is governed by the two-year period of limitation. At page 856, the court said:\n\u201cOn January 4, 1962, plaintiff filed the instant action in the United States District Court against Martin, Lilly and Perrigo. He sought to recover damages for alleged physical injuries charged to have been caused by alleged improprieties committed in the taking of his deposition on January 7, 1960.\u201d\nThe court also stated:\n\u201cIn short, plaintiff contends that defendants have misused the state power of compulsory process to inflict personal injuries upon him, thereby acting under color of state law and in violation of his rights under the due process and equal protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.\u201d (P 856.)\nAppellant also contends that under the provisions of section 24 of the Limitations Act, (Ill Rev Stats 1963, c 83, \u00a7 24a), after the rulings adverse to the plaintiff in the U. S. District Court and in the Superior Court of Cook County, he could commence a new action within one year after judgments against the plaintiff. The Superior Court judgment was entered on March 28, 1962. The judgment in the U. S. District Court was dated August 14, 1962. The current suit was filed on January 6, 1965, which was more than the one year as provided in Section 24a. The plaintiff was late in filing this suit.\nAppellant describes the instant case as an action for defendants\u2019 conspiracy to obstruct justice in Illinois and to damage plaintiff in his person and property for enforcing, or attempting to enforce, in the State courts, plaintiff\u2019s right to equal protection of the laws and that such action then comes within the provisions of \u201ccivil actions not otherwise provided for.\u201d Appellant relies on Wakat v. Harlib, 253 F2d 59 (7th Cir 1958), and concludes that the 5-year statute of limitations would then apply. We do not agree. In Wakat the court held that there were violations of the Civil Rights statutes. The U. S. Court of Appeals has held that appellant in the instant case has no cause of action for civil rights.\nIn the opinion of the court, the judgment of the Circuit Court of Cook County is correct, and the decision of said court is therefore affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nBURMAN, P. J. and MURPHY, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "MR. JUSTICE ADESKO" } ], "attorneys": [ "Sherman H. Skolnick, pro se, of Chicago, appellant.", "Kirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaff etz & Masters, and Bell, Boyd, Lloyd, Haddad & Burns, of Chicago, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Sherman H. Skolnick, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles T. Martin, et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nGen. No. 51,438.\nFirst District, First Division.\nJuly 22,1968.\nSherman H. Skolnick, pro se, of Chicago, appellant.\nKirkland, Ellis, Hodson, Chaff etz & Masters, and Bell, Boyd, Lloyd, Haddad & Burns, of Chicago, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0166-01", "first_page_order": 172, "last_page_order": 177 }