{
  "id": 5810761,
  "name": "Darrin Cummings, Claimant, v. Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cummings v. Board of Governors of State Colleges & Universities",
  "decision_date": "1991-06-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 91-CC-0711",
  "first_page": "357",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "43 Ill. Ct. Cl. 357"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "41 Ill. Ct. Cl. 197",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        3144122
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "199"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/41/0197-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
      "case_ids": [
        2784318
      ],
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "315"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-ct-cl/25/0313-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 173,
    "char_count": 2696,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.892,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17059006142829178
    },
    "sha256": "7bbc5912f4a06a388226d03930ead501efee02683bbf24b6f9aee2f2e66ec358",
    "simhash": "1:592db1b721fc8658",
    "word_count": 449
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:42.826417+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Darrin Cummings, Claimant, v. Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nSommer, J.\nThis is a personal injury claim in which the Claimant did not file the notice required by section 22 \u2014 1 of the Court of Claims Act. (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1989, ch. 39, pars. 439.22-1, 439.22-2.) The Respondent has filed a motion to dismiss.\nThe Claimant filed an action for damages for personal injury arising from the same facts in the circuit court. The Respondent entered a \u201cSpecial and Limited Appearance\u201d in the circuit court and moved to dismiss on the grounds that the Board of Governors cannot be a defendant in a claim for damages for personal injury in the circuit court. The Claimant now argues that the Board of Governors\u2019 appearance in the circuit court was a general appearance; and since the Board of Governors did not then object to the failure to file the statutory notice, it waived the right to object to a \u201cdefect of notice\u201d in the Court of Claims.\nIt is well established that a party generally appearing in a circuit court action cannot later argue that it did not have notice of the proceedings. The issue before us does not concern notice of the proceedings; rather it concerns the filing of the statutory notice in an action for injuries before this Court. The filing of the statutory notice is a condition precedent to filing a complaint in this Court and is jurisdictional. (Munch v. State (1966), 25 Ill. Ct. Cl. 313, 315.) This Court requires strict compliance with the notice requirement. Slepcevich v. State (1988), 41 Ill. Ct. Cl. 197, 199.\nThe Claimant\u2019s argument equates notice of proceedings with the statutory notice required for injury claims brought before the Court of Claims. The Claimant calls both \u201cnotice,\u201d but they are not equivalent. Obviously a party appearing in a court has \u201cwaived\u201d its opportunity to claim that it did not have notice that the proceeding was going on. However, a party finding itself a defendant in the wrong court and entering an appearance for a motion to dismiss does not waive its opportunity to enter jurisdictional or statutory objections to other courts hearing the claim when before those courts.\nThis Court finds that the Respondent did not waive its opportunity to object to the failure to file the statutory notice in this claim when it entered its special and limited appearance in circuit court. It is therefore, ordered that the Respondent\u2019s motion to dismiss is granted and this claim is dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Sommer, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Heckenkamp, Simhauser & Labarre, for Claimant.",
      "Roland W. Burris, Attorney General (Helen Ogar, Special Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 91-CC-0711\nDarrin Cummings, Claimant, v. Board of Governors of State Colleges and Universities, Respondent.\nOpinion filed June 27, 1991.\nHeckenkamp, Simhauser & Labarre, for Claimant.\nRoland W. Burris, Attorney General (Helen Ogar, Special Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0357-01",
  "first_page_order": 469,
  "last_page_order": 471
}