{
  "id": 2818674,
  "name": "Jane B. Shuffleton, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Shuffleton v. State",
  "decision_date": "1937-10-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 2956",
  "first_page": "46",
  "last_page": "47",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 Ill. Ct. Cl. 46"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 240,
    "char_count": 2979,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.564,
    "sha256": "6828cc39805cfc20e69f717b61cb38c178b161ec94e39d618fdacc1c509aa681",
    "simhash": "1:49e9c42266561fe9",
    "word_count": 514
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:15:58.456912+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jane B. Shuffleton, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Hollerich\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nIn March, 1936 one Margaret Bayne, who was then a prisoner at the Illinois State Penitentiary at Joliet was paroled to the claimant Jane B. Shuffleton. On May 18th, 1936 said Margaret Bayne, while working in the home of the claimant, was severely burned while making a fire in a hot water heater, and it became necessary to take her to a hospital for treatment. She remained in the hospital about six weeks, and during that time claimant expended the sum of $799.21 for necessary medical attention, hospitalization and nurses \u2019 fees, and asks for an award in that amount.\nThe Attorney General contends that there is no liability on the part of the State under the facts set forth in the complaint, and has moved to dismiss the claim.\nWe have repeatedly held that the jurisdiction of this court is limited to claims in respect of which the claimant would be entitled to redress against the State either at law or in equity, if the State were suable. Crabtree vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 207; Kramer vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 31; Shumway vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 43; Titone vs. State, decided at the January, 1937 term of this court.\nOur attention has not been called to any statute which makes the State liable for medical, surgical, hospital or nursing services for the inmate of any State penal institution while on parole. On the contrary, Section Seven (7) of the Parole Act of this State \u2014 Illinois State Bar Association Statutes, 1935, Chapter 38, Paragraph 801 \u2014 indicates a legislative intention that prisoners while on parole should not be an expense to the State. Said Section Seven (7) provides in part as follows:\n\u201cNo prisoner or ward shall he released from either the penitentiary or reformatory for women or such other institution herein in this Act mentioned until the Department of Public Welfare shall have made arrangements or shall have satisfactory evidence that arrangements have been made for his or her honorable and useful employment while upon parole in some suitable occupation and also for a proper and suitable home free from criminal influences and without expense to the State.\u201d\nEven if Margaret Bayne had been injured while still an inmate of the penitentiary, she would not have been entitled to recover damages from the State for such injuries, under the repeated decisions of this court. Burghardt vs. State, 5 C. C. R. 221; Pelka vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 390; Sturrock vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 157; Parks vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 535; Shilkitis vs. State, No. 2355, decided at the January term, 1937.\nUnder the facts set forth in the complaint, we have no authority to allow an award, and the motion of the Attorney General must be sustained.\nMotion to dismiss allowed. Case dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Hollerich"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Claimant, pro se.",
      "Otto Keener, Attorney General; Murray F. Milne, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 2956\nJane B. Shuffleton, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed October 12, 1937.\nClaimant, pro se.\nOtto Keener, Attorney General; Murray F. Milne, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0046-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 67
}
