{
  "id": 5074219,
  "name": "LOWELL J. MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. RICHARD M. DALEY, State's Attorney of Cook County, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Myers v. Daley",
  "decision_date": "1987-12-03",
  "docket_number": "No. 86-0321",
  "first_page": "249",
  "last_page": "252",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "166 Ill. App. 3d 249"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "490 N.E.2d 42",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "141 Ill. App. 3d 343",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3496096
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "347"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/141/0343-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "502 N.E.2d 1279",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "151 Ill. App. 3d 214",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3541669
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "221"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/151/0214-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "500 N.E.2d 707",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "149 Ill. App. 3d 235",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3460896
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "240"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/149/0235-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "475 N.E.2d 872",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "105 Ill. 2d 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3141899
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/105/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 N.E.2d 819",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "822"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 Mass. 286",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Mass.",
      "case_ids": [
        12254408
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "291"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/mass/299/0286-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "339 F. Supp. 13",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F. Supp.",
      "case_ids": [
        3598344
      ],
      "year": 1938,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "17-18"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f-supp/339/0013-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "530 P.2d 7",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "P.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "10"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "58 Ill. App. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5084509
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "265"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/58/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "178 Ill. App. 289",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8499764
      ],
      "year": 1895,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "291"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/178/0289-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "51 N.E. 758",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1913,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 Ill. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3158249
      ],
      "year": 1913,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "33"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/176/0009-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 389,
    "char_count": 6146,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.73,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15517178800771783
    },
    "sha256": "8248a8bc9951603992c04d1224eca1a1086a2d2273f02f04a0e5a502f7dec718",
    "simhash": "1:cd0ab64ef9ff47f2",
    "word_count": 1017
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:55:23.036295+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LOWELL J. MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. RICHARD M. DALEY, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McMORROW\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nLowell J. Myers (Myers) filed a complaint requesting that the court order the State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County (State\u2019s Attorney) to advise Myers of the status of the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s investigation into an incident in which Myers alleged he was the victim of a violent crime. The complaint was made pursuant to the Bill of Rights for Victims and Witnesses of Violent Crime Act (Victim\u2019s Rights Act) (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1401 et seq.), which mandates that upon request by the victim of a violent crime, the State\u2019s Attorney must inform the victim of the status of the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s investigation of the case. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1404(1).\nAfter Myers\u2019 complaint was filed, the State\u2019s Attorney informed him of the investigation\u2019s status. The trial court dismissed the complaint and ordered the State\u2019s Attorney to pay Myers\u2019 court costs. The State\u2019s Attorney appeals and Myers cross-appeals. We affirm.\nBackground\nIn May 1984, Myers sent a letter by registered mail to the State\u2019s Attorney in which he claimed that a certain individual had taken an item of his property and threatened to hit him. After receiving no response from the State\u2019s Attorney to this letter or two subsequent letters, Myers sent a final letter requesting information on the status of the investigation of his complaint in May 1985, specifically invoking the Victim\u2019s Rights Act. When he failed to receive a response to this final letter, he filed this action in July 1985.\nSubsequently, the State\u2019s Attorney informed Myers that the State\u2019s Attorney\u2019s office had declined to initiate a criminal prosecution with respect to Myers\u2019 claimed theft. The State\u2019s Attorney also requested that Myers voluntarily dismiss his action. Myers responded that he would agree to voluntarily dismiss the action if the State\u2019s Attorney would pay the court costs. The State\u2019s Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the complaint while Myers filed a motion requesting a dismissal and an award of court costs.\nThe trial court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment against the State\u2019s Attorney in the amount of $92.32 for court costs. The State\u2019s Attorney appeals from the order insofar as it granted court costs to Myers. Myers cross-appeals from that portion of the order which assessed costs against Richard M. Daley, not individually, but as State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County.\nOpinion\nGenerally a plaintiff may not recover costs upon the dismissal of his action. However, where proof of the facts stated in his complaint would entitle him to the relief requested, and the defendant\u2019s actions subsequent to the filing of the complaint render such proof and relief unnecessary, the trial court may award plaintiff court costs. See Cicero Lumber Co. v. Town of Cicero (1898), 176 Ill. 9, 33, 51 N.E. 758; Chicago Telephone Co. v. Wolf (1913), 178 Ill. App. 289, 291; Booth v. Gaither (1895), 58 Ill. App. 263, 265; see also Salvador v. Popaa (1974), 56 Ha. 111, 114, 530 P.2d 7, 10; Newport News Firefighters Association Local 794, International Association of Firefighters v. City of Newport News (E.D. Va. 1972), 339 F. Supp. 13, 17-18; Rosenthal v. Shepard Broadcasting Service, Inc. (1938), 299 Mass. 286, 291, 12 N.E.2d 819, 822; 20 C.J.S. Costs \u00a768(a) (1940).\nHere, proof of the facts alleged in Myers\u2019 complaint would have entitled him to the relief he requested. Myers\u2019 complaint alleged that he was the victim of a violent crime which he had reported to the State\u2019s Attorney. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, pars. 1403(a)(4), (e).) Therefore, upon Myers\u2019 request the State\u2019s Attorney had a legal duty to inform Myers of the status of his case. (See Ill. Rev. Stat. 1985, ch. 38, par. 1404(1).) Myers made repeated requests to be informed of the status of the investigation, but received no reply. Instead, the State\u2019s Attorney advised Myers of the status of his case only after Myers had filed suit against the State\u2019s Attorney pursuant to the Victim\u2019s Rights Act. Under these circumstances, the trial court properly exercised its discretion when it awarded to Myers the costs of suit. Indeed, the purpose of the Act would be frustrated if a victim were forced to file suit to learn the status of his case and were also burdened with the costs of that suit.\nIn his cross-appeal, Myers asserts that the court incorrectly levied costs against Richard M. Daley as State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County rather than Richard M. Daley personally. However, Myers raised no objection when the trial court added to Myers\u2019 draft order that costs were to be levied against Richard M. Daley, \u201cnot individually, but as State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County.\u201d Argument not raised in the trial court is deemed waived and may not be presented for the first time on appeal. (Western Casualty & Surety Co. v. Brochu (1985), 105 Ill. 2d 486, 475 N.E.2d 872; Harbor Insurance Co. v. Arthur Andersen & Co. (1986), 149 Ill. App. 3d 235, 240, 500 N.E.2d 707.) As a result, we need not and do not address Myers\u2019 claim on appeal that costs were not properly levied against the State\u2019s Attorney in his official capacity. We note, however, that because Richard M. Daley as State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County appeared and consented to the trial court\u2019s jurisdiction, the court acted with personal jurisdiction over him. See generally In re Robertson (1986), 151 Ill. App. 3d 214, 221, 502 N.E.2d 1279; National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Polyphasic Health Systems, Inc. (1986), 141 Ill. App. 3d 343, 347, 490 N.E.2d 42.\nFor the above reasons the judgment of the circuit court of Cook County is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJIGANTI, P.J., and JOHNSON, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PRESIDING JUSTICE McMORROW"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Henry A. Hauser, Susan Condon, and Daniel Cannon, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Lowell J. Myers, of Chicago, appellee pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "LOWELL J. MYERS, Plaintiff-Appellee and Cross-Appellant, v. RICHARD M. DALEY, State\u2019s Attorney of Cook County, Defendant-Appellant and Cross-Appellee.\nFirst District (4th Division)\nNo. 86-0321\nOpinion filed December 3, 1987.\nModified on denial of rehearing March 17, 1988.\nRichard M. Daley, State\u2019s Attorney, of Chicago (Henry A. Hauser, Susan Condon, and Daniel Cannon, Assistant State\u2019s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellant.\nLowell J. Myers, of Chicago, appellee pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0249-01",
  "first_page_order": 271,
  "last_page_order": 274
}