{
  "id": 5322174,
  "name": "Stuart Daiserman, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Kaiserman, Deceased, Et al, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Daiserman v. State",
  "decision_date": "1978-09-15",
  "docket_number": "No. 76-CC-0877",
  "first_page": "619",
  "last_page": "621",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 619"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "404 Ill. 307",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5307678
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "312"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/404/0307-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "336 Ill. App. 403",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2425670
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "408"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/336/0403-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        2784318
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "316"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/25/0313-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "23 Ill. Ct. Cl. 58",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        2777465
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/23/0058-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3929,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.78,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15790592424500424
    },
    "sha256": "0b816ed4f4672d20a27fd0787e7e269207569dceaec2c5eacbf1dbe733458c54",
    "simhash": "1:e25ceeb932a604ed",
    "word_count": 668
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:54:10.322906+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Stuart Daiserman, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Kaiserman, Deceased, Et al, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThis matter comes before the Court on Claimant\u2019s motion to vacate order of dismissal and Respondent\u2019s objections to said motion.\nOn July 15,1976, this Court dismissed the original complaint because the complaint was filed over two years after the action accrued and was barred by the limitations imposed by the \u201cCourt of Claims Act\u201d (Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 37, sec. 439.22, 1975).\nThe question is whether the new motion to file an amended complaint on August 25, 1976, comes within the two year limitation imposed by the \u201cCourt of Claims Act.\u201d\nIt is the contention of Claimant that the new motion was filed within the two year limitation imposed by the \u201cCourt of Claims Act\u201d and it is the contention of Respondent that it does not come within the two year limitation.\nIt is also Respondent\u2019s contention \u201cthat the alleged rationale for filing the amended complaint under Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 83, Sec. 24 (a), 1975 has no relationship to the statute of limitations imposed by the Court of Claims, since Section 24 (a) sets out specific situations wherein that Section applies, none of which apply to this particular case; that the specific situations described in this Section are as follows:\na. \u201cIf judgment is given for the plaintiff but reversed on appeal;\u201d\nb. If there isa verdict for the plaintiff and upon matter alleged in arrest of judgment, the judgment is given against the plaintiff;\nc. If the plaintiff is nonsuited, or the action is dismissed for want of prosecution, then, whether or not the time limitation for bringing such action expires during the pendency of such suit, the plaintiff, his heirs, executors or administrators may commence a new action within one year or within the remaining period of limitation, whichever is greater, after such judgment is reversed or given against the plaintiff, or after the plaintiff is nonsuited or the action is dismissed for want of prosecution;\nthat said action in the Circuit Court was not \u201creversed on appeal,\u201d nor was the \u201cverdict for plaintiff\u2019 and \u201cin arrest of judgment,\u201d then rendered \u201cagainst the plaintiff,\u201d nor was the plaintiff \u201cnon-suited or dismissed for want of prosecution,\u201d and thus this statute has no effect upon the two year limitation provided in the \u201cCourt of Claims Act;\u201d\n3. That even if the \u201cnonsuited\u201d provision of Ch. 83, Section 24 (a) could possibly be interpreted as applying to this particular cause of action, this Court would still lack jurisdiction to hear this matter due to the exclusive provisions of the \u201cCourt of Claims Act\u201d and the limitations specifically provided in the Act \u201cmakes no provision by a savings clause\u201d for persons filing beyond the two years, except through the Legislature, Truitt v. State of Illinois, 23 Ill. Ct. Cl. 58, 62 and that the maximum limitation for jurisdiction of the Court of Claims is absolute at two years, Munch v. State of Illinois, 25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 313, 316, and the general limitations provided in Chapter 83 have no application to special statutory actions like the \u201cCourt of Claims Act,\u201d Robert N. Wilson, Administrator of Estate of Ruth Titzer Wilson v. Fred Tromly, Administrator of Estate of Nolen Stevens, 336 Ill. App. 403, 408, and Wilson v. Tromley, 404 Ill. 307, 312, and therefore the motion of Claimant must be denied for lack of jurisdiction of the Court of Claims.\n4. \u201cThat the motion to vacate the Court of Claims order of dismissal was filed beyond the 30 days provided for in Rule 22 and Rule 24 of the Court of Claims and thus should be denied for a rehearing or a new trial as well as to file any further pleadings in this matter.\u201d\nIt is the opinion of this Court that the Respondent\u2019s motion is correct and the motion to vacate order of dismissal is therefore denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 76-CC-0877\nStuart Daiserman, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of Jeffrey Kaiserman, Deceased, Et al, Claimant, v. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOrder filed September 15, 1978."
  },
  "file_name": "0619-01",
  "first_page_order": 733,
  "last_page_order": 735
}