{
  "id": 2804013,
  "name": "National Aniline & Chemical Company, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "National Aniline & Chemical Co. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1927-03-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 841",
  "first_page": "11",
  "last_page": "11",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 11"
    }
  ],
  "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": 115,
    "char_count": 1522,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.507,
    "sha256": "97620a522c420a7eac17baccf98a0df87903819cd86c9c99d6b1672ce0fef26c",
    "simhash": "1:46e6f6ffa4ae84d1",
    "word_count": 252
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:41.892765+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "National Aniline & Chemical Company, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nFor the reasons set forth in the opinion filed in this court in the case of Moline Plow Company v. State of Illinois, Numbers 687 and 687-a, this claim is disallowed.\nOn October 24, 1928, upon petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed:\nThis court has heretofore held in this case which comes for consideration upon a petition for rehearing, that claimant had a remedy at law through the courts of general jurisdiction. This court is of the opinion after examination of the brief and argument of claimant on the question of rehearing that claimant has an adequate remedy at law through courts of general jurisdiction.\nThe court is impressed in the consideration of this case with the elements in the case that would appeal to the rule of equity and good conscience, yet this court cannot be unmindful of the position taken by the court in the Moline Plow Company case in that where there is a remedy at law to claimants in courts of general jurisdiction, that this court must follow the usual rule in denying relief on the question of equity and good conscience.\nFor the reason above stated the petition for rehearing is denied, and dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gardner & Carton, for claimant.",
      "Oscar E. Caklstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 841\nNational Aniline & Chemical Company, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed March 10, 1927.\nRehearing denied October 24, 1928.\nGardner & Carton, for claimant.\nOscar E. Caklstrom, Attorney General; Edward C. Fitch, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0011-01",
  "first_page_order": 37,
  "last_page_order": 37
}