{
  "id": 2698562,
  "name": "Gem City Vineland Co., Inc., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gem City Vineland Co. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1983-11-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 83-CC-2016",
  "first_page": "303",
  "last_page": "305",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "36 Ill. Ct. Cl. 303"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "16 Ill. Ct. Cl. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        2760174
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "286"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/16/0284-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 183,
    "char_count": 2645,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.872,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08357996933411949
    },
    "sha256": "24b30d544bc9a967e49bef3bbd0158bb4413fe4ce5ef4230dbb6673fdf7e7a0d",
    "simhash": "1:3fd3a81e774408c0",
    "word_count": 432
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:14:57.173915+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gem City Vineland Co., Inc., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "POCH, J.\nThis cause comes before this Court on Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss. The facts of the case are that the Claimant on February 1, 1983, made application for a first-class wine manufacturer\u2019s license and paid the sum of $500.00 in accordance with the statute. The Illinois Liquor Control Commission issued a first-class wine manufacturer\u2019s license to the Claimant on February 24, 1983. Following the issuance of the first-class wine manufacturer\u2019s license, the Claimant, on March 17,1983, applied for a first-class wine maker\u2019s license and again paid the fee as required by statute. Then, before the issuance of the first-class wine maker\u2019s license, the Claimant applied on March 25, 1983, for a wine maker\u2019s retail license and again paid the appropriate fee. On April 4, 1983, both the first-class wine maker\u2019s license and wine maker\u2019s retail license were issued. Upon the issuance of the first-class wine maker and wine maker\u2019s retail licenses the Claimant voluntarily surrendered the first-class wine manufacturer\u2019s license. The Claimant would now like to have a refund for the amount paid for the first-class manufacturer\u2019s license. The Claimant may or may not have understood the legal significance attached to each license, but the Claimant did in fact get what it bargained for. If the Claimant made a mistake as to the legal significance of the license, this constitutes a mistake of law for which there is no recovery under the law. The Court in Southside Petroleum Co. v. State (1947), 16 Ill. Ct. Cl. 284, stated:\n\u201cA mistake of law is an erroneous conclusion as to the legal effect of known facts and therefore under the law payments made by Claimants are clearly a mistake of law and are not recoverable.\u201d\nAgain in the same case, the Court stated that:\n\u201cFees and taxes paid voluntarily and without any compulsion or duress, cannot be recovered in the absence of a statute authorizing such recovery.\" (16 Ill. Ct. Cl. 284, 286.)\nThis Court is unaware of any statute authorizing the recovery for taxes paid voluntarily and without compulsion or duress.\nTo grant this Claimant a recovery would invite every licensee who simply changed their minds about wanting a license to seek a refund claiming mistake. No license transaction would ever be final until the lapse of the licensing period.\nFor the above reasons, this claim is hereby denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "POCH, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gem City Vineland Co., Inc., pro se, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 83-CC-2016\nGem City Vineland Co., Inc., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOrder filed November 29, 1983.\nGem City Vineland Co., Inc., pro se, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (William E. Webber, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0303-01",
  "first_page_order": 391,
  "last_page_order": 393
}