{
  "id": 2710766,
  "name": "Central Office Equipment Company, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Central Office Equipment Co. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1979-10-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 75-CC-1194",
  "first_page": "90",
  "last_page": "92",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "33 Ill. Ct. Cl. 90"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "77 N.E.2d 665",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "399 Ill. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2460213
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/399/0311-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2530,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.866,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4098200319786984
    },
    "sha256": "16268b0a9d24c3c113d68e63fbd56b3f0e7f6df5bfd401d231aeb20b45255c3a",
    "simhash": "1:5554a34cc9c54015",
    "word_count": 420
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:58:37.558056+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Central Office Equipment Company, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holderman, J.\nClaimant seeks recovery in the sum of $1,293.98 for materials furnished to complete a storage rack system installed in the Secretary of State\u2019s License Plate Facility at Industrial Park, south of Springfield. The payment was not authorized by the Secretary of State\u2019s office because there was no purchase order or agreement entered into.\nThe Respondent contends that the claim is one resting on quantum meruit and that such cannot be a basis for a claim against the State, citing People v. Winston (1948), 399 Ill. 311, 77 N.E.2d 665.\nClaimant entered into a contract to supply a rack storage unit for the Secretary of State at a new facility on Dirksen Parkway. The contract was awarded to Claimant in September 1972. In the following August or September, the Claimant was advised to install a pallet rack in the old facility at Industrial Park rather than the new facility.\nTo make the installation at the new location required extra parts. He was informed verbally to proceed to the completion \u201cno matter what it costs.\u201d\nIt thus appears that Claimant proceeded in good faith to order the parts and install them but they weren\u2019t paid for because no prior purchase order had been issued \u2014 just a verbal authorization.\nNo claim is made for the contract price as originally bid and payment in full of such amount has been made. The claim is only for needed extras required in changing the job from the new site to the old facility.\nThe statute says, \u201c. . . a purchase order emanating from an office or official authorized to obligate the funds of the State is a prerequisite to the establishment of an obligation . . . against the State\u201d\n\u201cIt is well established that Quantum Meruit does not lie against the Sovereign. There are statutes dealing with State purchases and there are rules and regulations. These statutes, rules and regulations are all published and available to any vendor who cares to acquaint himself with them.\u201d\nIt may very well be that this seems to be a harsh treatment of the matter. On the other hand, to allow quantum meruit in this instance would establish a precedent that could very well be the basis for a greater evil \u2014 expending public funds without a proper authorization in the first instance.\nClaim denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holderman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David Eckstein Goldman, for Claimant.",
      "William J. Scott, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 75-CC-1194\nCentral Office Equipment Company, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed October 5, 1979.\nDavid Eckstein Goldman, for Claimant.\nWilliam J. Scott, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0090-01",
  "first_page_order": 168,
  "last_page_order": 170
}