{
  "id": 2796167,
  "name": "Pratt & Lambert, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pratt & Lambert, Inc. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1928-10-24",
  "docket_number": "No. 1271",
  "first_page": "103",
  "last_page": "103",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 103"
    }
  ],
  "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": 103,
    "char_count": 1231,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.562,
    "sha256": "c6b8c8df16436a5f1038533b8b66b06f19054fd0a2e2617ccdb26e18187302cd",
    "simhash": "1:17741acfa16c9629",
    "word_count": 205
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:41.892765+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pratt & Lambert, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe claimant, a New York Corporation, seeks to recover on account of franchise taxes and initial fees alleged to be wrongfully collected by the Secretary of State.\nThis court is of the opinion that claimant had an adequate remedy at law in courts of general jurisdiction as expressed by this court in the opinion filed in the case of The Moline Plow Company v. The State of Illinois, and in the case of Geo. P. Ide & Co., Inc., v. The State of Illinois.\nTherefore it is recommended by this court that this claim be disallowed.\nOn February 13, 1929, upon petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed:\nThis is a case before this court on rehearing. The court is of the opinion that the records fail to disclose any reason for a change in the opinion heretofore filed in said claim.\nIt is therefore recommended by this court that petition for rehearing be denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Follansbee, Shorey & Schupp, for claimant.",
      "Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 1271\nPratt & Lambert, Inc., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed October 24, 1928.\nRehearing denied February 13, 1929.\nFollansbee, Shorey & Schupp, for claimant.\nOscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0103-01",
  "first_page_order": 129,
  "last_page_order": 129
}