{
  "id": 5808771,
  "name": "Annette Buchanan, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Buchanan v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-01-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 87-CC-1320",
  "first_page": "241",
  "last_page": "244",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 241"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        2712102
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "271-72"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/34/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        5816337
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "75"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "Emphasis in original."
        },
        {
          "page": "76"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/37/0072-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 263,
    "char_count": 4165,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.854,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17056013690373453
    },
    "sha256": "a01439727501c97fee124cea15db0aa9f2e3ed5268c20d24036c3a21326128b3",
    "simhash": "1:833e0ed3397b5fb9",
    "word_count": 699
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:42.826417+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Annette Buchanan, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS\nDillard, J.\nThis cause coming on to be heard on Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss, due notice having been given and the Court being fully advised in the premises;\nIt is hereby ordered that Claimant is granted 45 days from the filing date of this order to respond to Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss;\nIt is further ordered that should Claimant fail to respond to this Order, this case is dismissed with prejudice.\nORDER ON MOTION TO REINSTATE\nDillard, J.\nThis cause coming on to be heard on Claimant\u2019s motion to reinstate cause, due notice having been given and the Court being fully advised in the premises;\nIt is hereby ordered that the Court\u2019s order of January 17, 1989, dismissing this claim with prejudice is vacated and this matter is fully reinstated.\nIt is further ordered that Dan Walker, Jr. is granted leave instanter to file his appearance on behalf of Claimant in this matter.\nORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS\nRaucci, J.\nThis cause coming to be heard upon the motion of the Respondent to dismiss the claim herein, due notice having been given the parties hereto, and the Court being fully advised in the premises, the Court finds:\nThat Claimant filed a complaint in the instant matter alleging personal injuries suffered on December 14, 1984, when she was physically assaulted by Mr. Baron Buchanan on a Chicago Transit Authority elevated platform.\nThat section 790.60 of the Court of Claims Regulations and section 25 of the Court of Claims Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1987, ch. 37, par. 439.24 \u2014 5) require that any person who files a claim before the Court of Claims shall, before seeking final determination of his claim by this Court, exhaust all other remedies and sources of recovery whether administrative, legal or equitable.\nThat Claimant ignored section 25 of the Act and section 790.60 of the Regulations by failing to exhaust her remedies against her attacker, Baron Buchanan, prior to seeking final disposition in the Court of Claims.\nThat section 790.90 of the Court of Claims Regulations clearly mandates that failure to comply with the provisions of section 790.60 shall be grounds for dismissal.\nThat this Court has faced a similar situation before. In Boe v. State (1984), 37 Ill. Ct. Cl. 72, the Claimant brought suit against the State after her daughter, a passenger in an automobile, died when the driver of that auto collided with an allegedly defective guardrail on a State highway. The Claimant, however, did not file suit against the driver of the vehicle, and as a result, the Respondent filed a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust remedies pursuant to section 25 of the Court of Claims Act and section 790.60 of the Court of Claims Regulations. In response, the Claimant argued that she \u201cshould be given a certain latitude and discretion in determining whom to sue,\u201d and, in essence, that it \u201cdid not seem reasonable to sue an uninsured 18 year-old boy with no assets.\u201d Id. at 75. The Court rejected Claimant\u2019s argument and granted Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss, holding that the Claimant \u201cmust exhaust all possible causes of action before seeking final disposition of a case filed in the Court of Claims.\u201d Id. (Emphasis in original.) The Court reasoned that the language of section 25 of the Act and section 790.60 of the Regulations \u201cclearly makes the exhaustion of remedies mandatory rather than optional,\u201d and that if it were to waive this requirement, \u201cthe requirement would be transformed into an option, to be accepted or ignored according to the whim of all Claimants.\u201d Id. at 76, quoting Lyons v. State (1981), 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 268, 271-72.\nLike the Claimant in Boe, the Claimant in the instant matter has failed to exhaust her remedies.\nIt is hereby ordered that Claimant\u2019s claim is dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Dillard, J. Dillard, J. Raucci, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James R. Vassilow & Associates and Dan Walker, Jr., for Claimant.",
      "Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Gregory Abbott, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 87-CC-1320\nAnnette Buchanan, Claimant, v. The State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion on motion to dismiss filed January 17, 1989.\nOrder on motion to reinstate filed May 1, 1989.\nOrder on motion to dismiss filed March 22, 1991.\nJames R. Vassilow & Associates and Dan Walker, Jr., for Claimant.\nRoland W. Burris, Attorney General (Gregory Abbott, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0241-01",
  "first_page_order": 353,
  "last_page_order": 356
}