{
  "id": 3055660,
  "name": "James Leo Edwards, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Edwards v. State",
  "decision_date": "1986-01-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 83-CC-1570",
  "first_page": "206",
  "last_page": "208",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 Ill. Ct. Cl. 206"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        5320322
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/32/0099-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 2135,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.898,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.351075834111073e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6335595241266961
    },
    "sha256": "51120139ff31c59290341b898ee7ab8f3180de70ff4b896f2b2bf1bbf35581f9",
    "simhash": "1:5fc54d43217adc70",
    "word_count": 364
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:09:05.193768+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Leo Edwards, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Holderman, J.\nClaimant in this matter was an inmate at the Pontiac Correctional Center. He did not have a cellmate.\nOn July 24, 1981, Claimant was attending certain classes at the institution, and while he was in class, he was informed that other residents of the institution were in his cell. He immediately notified the officer in charge of the group he was with and upon returning to his cell, he found that the items listed in his complaint were missing.\nIt appears from the evidence that Claimant had permits for an AM-FM radio; eight-track Panasonic; Norelco razor; and a 12-inch black and white Panasonic TV. He also had cosmetics and cigarettes, food items, etc.\nIt is Claimant\u2019s contention that Respondent was negligent in not keeping his cell locked when he was absent and by allowing other inmates in his cell to take possession of his property.\nClaimant has also filed suit in Federal court, the results of which do not appear in the Court of Claims\u2019 files.\nThis Court, in Bargas v. State (1976), 32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 99, has laid down the rule that there is no general duty on the part of the State of Illinois to safeguard an inmate\u2019s property from theft by other inmates when that property is in the inmate\u2019s cell. In that case, Claimant raises the point that the State should have taken steps to safeguard his property from theft by other inmates and seeks to charge Respondent with responsibility for the independent criminal acts of other inmates. The Court stated \u201cWe can find no basis for imposing such a burden upon the State. The State is not an insurer of an inmate\u2019s property, and cannot be responsible where other inmates engage in criminal acts directed at that property. Nor can the State in the exercise of reasonable care be expected to prevent isolated acts of pilferage in the environment of a penal institution.\u201d\nAward denied. Case dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Holderman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James Leo Edwards, pro se, for Claimant.",
      "Neil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (G. Michael Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 83-CC-1570\nJames Leo Edwards, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOrder filed January 8, 1986.\nJames Leo Edwards, pro se, for Claimant.\nNeil F. Hartigan, Attorney General (G. Michael Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0206-01",
  "first_page_order": 292,
  "last_page_order": 294
}