{
  "id": 5818403,
  "name": "City of Chicago, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. State",
  "decision_date": "1984-09-21",
  "docket_number": "No. 84-CC-1275",
  "first_page": "286",
  "last_page": "288",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 286"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "449 N.E.2d 53",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "96 Ill. 2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3115366
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/96/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        5330187
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/29/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill. Ct. Cl. 337",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        5332624,
        5333155,
        5332148
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/28/0337-02",
        "/ill-ct-cl/28/0337-03",
        "/ill-ct-cl/28/0337-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 Ill. 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 167,
    "char_count": 1793,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.916,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17065048966175247
    },
    "sha256": "de53122b640959339c57776b2ea3970b2c7695f2543378fb33b7316486c17b93",
    "simhash": "1:6243a345136f0650",
    "word_count": 285
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:01.719225+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Raucci, J.\nThis cause comes on to be heard on stipulation of the Respondent to pay the Claimant\u2019s claim of $10,872.96 notwithstanding the fact that sufficient appropriated funds were not available at the end of Fiscal Year 1983 to pay this claim.\nRespondent urges us that this expenditure \u201cwas expressly authorized by law\u201d and therefore not subject to the ordinary restriction that public monies must be appropriated by the General Assembly in order to be expended.\nThe \u201cexpressly authorized by law\u201d concept has its genesis in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois in the case of Fergus v. Brady (1917), 277 Ill. 273. And following that opinion, this Court has made numerous awards on the basis that they \u201cwere expressly authorized by law.\u201d See Rock Island County v. State (1973), 28 Ill. Ct. Cl. 337, and Clavey v. State (1973), 29 Ill. Ct. Cl. 21.\nUnlike the prior cases, the instant case arises because the General Assembly legislated that the funds previously appropriated be reduced through a device known as \u201ccontingency reserves.\u201d This authorization is contained in the Emergency Budget Act (P.A. 82-1038, approved December 1982).\nThe Act withstood vigorous constitutional attack by a divided Supreme Court of Illinois in Warrior v. Thompson (1983), 96 Ill. 2d 1, 449 N.E.2d 53.\nThe specific legislative intent (i.e. to \u201creserve\u201d appropriations) being easily ascertainable, this Court has no alternative but to deny the claim.\nIt is therefore ordered that the claim be dismissed, with prejudice.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Raucci, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James D. Montgomery and Edward T. McAuliffe, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Kathleen O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 84-CC-1275\nCity of Chicago, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOrder filed September 21, 1984.\nJames D. Montgomery and Edward T. McAuliffe, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Kathleen O\u2019Brien, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0286-01",
  "first_page_order": 370,
  "last_page_order": 372
}