{
  "id": 2815411,
  "name": "J. Myrtle Lewis, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lewis v. State",
  "decision_date": "1937-11-09",
  "docket_number": "No. 2247",
  "first_page": "136",
  "last_page": "137",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 Ill. Ct. Cl. 136"
    }
  ],
  "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": 128,
    "char_count": 1265,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.515,
    "sha256": "13a6e8b37d45a11d3c6b3c6c1caadef1528e9c268a31718a11b952f387b28817",
    "simhash": "1:80e111a4901932be",
    "word_count": 219
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:15:58.456912+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. Myrtle Lewis, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Yantis\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nClaimant herein recites that she was relieved from duty as an employee in the Military and Navy Department, upon one-half day\u2019s notice, and that having been so relieved she did not receive pay for two weeks\u2019 time which would have constituted her annual vacation period; that the reason for not having received her vacation was the fact that \u201cwork taken care of by Colonel S. 0. Tripp, for whom claimant worked, was such that neither he nor she could leave, and claimant was not permitted to take her vacation unless Colonel Tripp also decided to leave.\u201d\nA motion to dismiss the claim has been filed by the Attorney General for the reason that the claim upon its face does not recite a legal basis upon which an award could be made.\nThis is a similar claim to that of Stephen O. Tripp vs. State, No. 2248, decided at this term, and the reasons therein stated for a dismissal of the claim, apply in this matter. The motion of the Attorney General is allowed and the claim dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Yantis"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Claimant, pro se.",
      "Otto Keener, Attorney General; Carl Dietz and John Kasserman, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 2247\nJ. Myrtle Lewis, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed November 9, 1937.\nClaimant, pro se.\nOtto Keener, Attorney General; Carl Dietz and John Kasserman, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0136-01",
  "first_page_order": 156,
  "last_page_order": 157
}