{
  "id": 5326132,
  "name": "Image Response, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Image Response v. State",
  "decision_date": "1978-04-07",
  "docket_number": "No. 77-CC-0661",
  "first_page": "209",
  "last_page": "209",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 209"
    }
  ],
  "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": 72,
    "char_count": 674,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.778,
    "sha256": "09daff4bde6f4d679bd8c627541c0b7eba6719ffc426ab26fff3fa3e999c6ea7",
    "simhash": "1:dfec8af96064a33a",
    "word_count": 117
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:54:10.322906+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Image Response, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis cause having come before the Court on the motion of Respondent, and Claimant having failed to respond, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, find that the Claimant, as set forth in Respondent\u2019 s motion to dismiss, failed to attach the contract for services and the joining of two separate agencies in the same complaint is in violation of Rule 5(c) and Rule 5(d)(3) respectively, therefore, this claim should be dismissed according to Rule 9 of the Court of Claims.\nIt is therefore ordered that this claim be, and the same is hereby denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 77-CC-0661\nImage Response, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOrder filed April 7, 1978."
  },
  "file_name": "0209-01",
  "first_page_order": 323,
  "last_page_order": 323
}