{
  "id": 5818817,
  "name": "Union Electric Co., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Union Electric Co. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1985-01-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 84-CC-2682",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "303",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 301"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 2180,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.889,
    "sha256": "c007b9b9ba45bf2239a6ca357919fb36c6431571a8c3855fc388bd6d80a26464",
    "simhash": "1:a84adfcf584eb5dd",
    "word_count": 364
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:55:01.719225+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Union Electric Co., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS\nRaucci, J.\nThis cause coming on to be heard on the Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss and the Court being duly advised in the premises:\nFinds, that the Claimant\u2019s complaint was filed on April 6, 1984. Exhibit A to the complaint and the departmental report establish that the electrical service was rendered between June 21, 1977, and July 21, 1977. Claimant\u2019s response to the motion to dismiss now asserts that\n\u201cthe claim is for \u2018the balanc\u00e9 remaining due for current charges on the account involved herein after applying the most recent payment received from the State of Illinois first to the previous balance on this account and then applying the remaining balance of such payment to current charges.\u2019 \u201d (Emphasis added)\nThis position is untenable. If this claim were for current service, it would not be filed in this Court at this time, but would be paid out of the current appropriation. Additionally why would Claimant attach a 1977 invoice to justify a current claim?\nThis is a lapsed appropriation claim, which stems from a contract. Section 22(a) of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1983, ch. 37, par. 439.22(a)) establishes that all claims arising out of contract must be filed with the Court of Claims within five years of the date the cause of action accrues, or should be forever barred. This claim has not been timely filed.\nIt is hereby ordered that this cause is dismissed with prejudice.\nORDER ON MOTION TO RECONSIDER\nRaucci, J.\nThis cause coming on to be heard on the Claimant\u2019s motion to reconsider, the Court being fully advised in the premises:\nThe motion to reconsider should be denied for the reasons stated in the Respondent\u2019s memorandum in opposition to Claimant\u2019s suggestions in support of motion to reconsider.\nIt is therefore ordered that the motion to reconsider be, and it is hereby, denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Raucci, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pope & Driemeyer, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Sue Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 84-CC-2682\nUnion Electric Co., Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOrder on motion to dismiss filed August 22, 1984.\nOrder on motion to reconsider filed January 31, 1985.\nPope & Driemeyer, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (Sue Mueller, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 385,
  "last_page_order": 387
}