{
  "id": 5321548,
  "name": "Ellard Lee Douglas and Judith Grace Douglas, Claimants, v. Department of Conservation of the State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Douglas v. Department of Conservation",
  "decision_date": "1977-10-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 75-CC-0234",
  "first_page": "113",
  "last_page": "115",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 113"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "300 F 2d 395",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        241159
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/300/0395-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "77 NE2d 526",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "333 Ill. App. 338",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5030877
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/333/0338-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "249 NE2d 178",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "110 Ill. App. 2d 327",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1594021
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/110/0327-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 NE2d 252",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill. App. 2d 132",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1601101
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/104/0132-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill.Ct.Cl. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        2718701
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/31/0499-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 198,
    "char_count": 2619,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.806,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7487092876843399
    },
    "sha256": "3802500381f1a24455650475eb757998995573af71ab61e11ee39e97ecb1dc06",
    "simhash": "1:ac2b64db10f2e95f",
    "word_count": 439
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:54:10.322906+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ellard Lee Douglas and Judith Grace Douglas, Claimants, v. Department of Conservation of the State of Illinois, , Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis matter comes before the Court, by Claimant, on a motion to reconsider, Claimants\u2019 motion in opposition to Respondent\u2019s motion to reconsider, and Respondent\u2019s reply to Claimants\u2019 motion in opposition to Respondent\u2019s motion to reconsider.\nIn the original opinion in this case, the Court took the position that it was a breach of contract by the Respondent that caused Claimants to incur the expenses for which they now seek recovery. Douglas and Douglas v. State, 31 Ill.Ct.Cl. 499.\nAfter reviewing all the motions before the Court, the Court finds that the argument that attorney\u2019s fees are not recoverable is untenable. The attorney\u2019s fees expended by Claimants were incurred in litigation with a third party. The litigation with the third p\u00e1rty was brought on as a consequence of the failure of the Respondent to perform as agreed under its contract with Claimants.\nRespondent cites People v. Redfern, 104 Ill. App. 2d 132, 243 NE2d 252. In that case, however, the attorney\u2019s fees were incurred in the litigation with the defendant, and the Court held that only when there is statutory authority for assessing attorney\u2019s fees are they to be allowed. See, for example, Sec. 41 of the \u201cCivil Practice Act\u201d Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 110, Sec. 41, where it provides that reasonable attorney\u2019s fees are allowed where untrue allegation and denials are made without reasonable cause.\nRespondent also cites O\u2019Hare v. Moniak 110 Ill. App. 2d 327, 249 NE2d 178, which is also to the effect that a statute must authorize the assessment of attorney\u2019s fees.\nHowever, in the case before this Court, attorney\u2019s fees in the separate litigation with a third party were a result of the Respondent\u2019s breach of contract and, hence, are in the nature of an expense incurred as a result of the breach.\nIn 15 IL&P, Damages - Sec. 62, p. 397 and 398, it is stated:\nwhere the natural and proximate consequence of a wrongful act has been to involve the plaintiff in litigation with others, there may be, as a general rule, a recovery in damages against the author of such act of the reasonable expenses incurred in such litigation together with compensation for attorneys fees, and such costs as may have been awarded against the plaintiff.\u201d Citing Standard Oil Co. of Ind. v. Daniel, 333 Ill. App. 338, 77 NE2d 526; Freed v. The Travelers, 300 F 2d 395.\nMotion to reconsider heretofore filed by the Respondent is denied and the orgiinal opinion is confirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 75-CC-0234\nEllard Lee Douglas and Judith Grace Douglas, Claimants, v. Department of Conservation of the State of Illinois, , Respondent.\nOrder filed October 21, 1977."
  },
  "file_name": "0113-01",
  "first_page_order": 227,
  "last_page_order": 229
}