{
  "id": 5814403,
  "name": "County of St. Clair, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "County of St. Clair v. State",
  "decision_date": "1984-10-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 84-CC-1922",
  "first_page": "297",
  "last_page": "299",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 297"
    }
  ],
  "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": "426 N.E.2d 955",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "100 Ill. App. 3d 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5500825
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/100/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 N.E.2d 344",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 Ill. App. 2d 410",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2476519
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/97/0410-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "402 N.E.2d 709",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. App. 3d 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3223341
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/82/0494-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "403 N.E.2d 680",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "82 Ill. App. 3d 1003",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3226629
      ],
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/82/1003-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 234,
    "char_count": 2746,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.879,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7519218301916444
    },
    "sha256": "b5500b50ad1cf40adf325484fe6556426670fe2a4f5956dc00be527a0054c0d1",
    "simhash": "1:24f5328dbb67aabd",
    "word_count": 442
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:01.719225+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "County of St. Clair, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Raucci, J.\nThis cause comes on to be heard on motion of the Respondent to dismiss the Claimant\u2019s claim of $953.01 due to 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 is subject to the ordinary restriction that public monies must be appropriated by the General Assembly in order to be expended.\nThe 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.\nClaimant, subsequent to Respondent\u2019s motion, filed its motion to amend complaint. Because of the disposition of Respondent\u2019s motion, Claimant\u2019s motion is moot.\nIt is therefore ordered that the claim be dismissed, with prejudice.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Raucci, J."
      },
      {
        "text": "ORDER ON REHEARING\nRaucci, J.\nThis cause having come for consideration on the Respondent\u2019s objection to Claimant\u2019s motion for rehearing and the Court being duly advised in the premises:\nFinds, that the Claimant is asking for a rehearing on a matter which is already moot. Claimant asks that this Court decide the \u201cmerits\u201d of this case. However, in order for the Court to decide this case there is need for an actual controversy. (Royal Glove Insurance Company v. Aetna Insurance Company, 82 Ill. App. 3d 1003, 403 N.E.2d 680; Midwest Petroleum Marketer Association v. City of Chicago, 82 Ill. App. 3d 494, 402 N.E.2d 709.) Furthermore, a claim for declaratory relief, standing alone, does not keep an otherwise moot claim alive. (Simpson v. Miller, 93 F.D.R. 540.) A moot case can not support an entry of declaratory judgment with regard to future rights. (Berg v. City of Chicago, 97 Ill. App. 2d 410, 240 N.E.2d 344.) Declaratory judgment procedure is not intended to permit litigation of moot or hypothetical cases. Clyde Savings & Loan v. May Department Stores, 100 Ill. App. 3d 189, 426 N.E.2d 955.\nIt is hereby ordered, that as this case has been decided, and the issue is moot, the motion for rehearing is denied.",
        "type": "rehearing",
        "author": "Raucci, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gary L. Bement, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Sue Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 84-CC-1922\nCounty of St. Clair, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOrder filed October 31, 1984.\nOrder on motion for rehearing filed March 25, 1985.\nGary L. Bement, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Sue Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0297-01",
  "first_page_order": 381,
  "last_page_order": 383
}