{
  "id": 2791733,
  "name": "Karl Axel Henrick Larson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Larson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1930-12-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 1300",
  "first_page": "493",
  "last_page": "494",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 493"
    }
  ],
  "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": 149,
    "char_count": 1891,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "sha256": "34f6f4eff0bef888e9bc6a8ca03ef888c080c22118432b0fce8ddb42f9608e4c",
    "simhash": "1:01214ed1aca1f418",
    "word_count": 319
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:41.892765+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Karl Axel Henrick Larson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is a claim for damages alleged to be done to crops on account of the improper construction of hard road Eoute 3, which is supposed to have caused poor drainage of the claimant\u2019s land. The land in question has been termed \u201clow land on general level\u201d and from the evidence disclosed by the record it appears that in dry years, crops could always be raised and in wet years they could not raise crops and it does appear that the years in question were exceedingly wet years.\nThe State contends that it would be an impossibility to build a bridge that would take care of the situation following extraordinary heavy rains. The Attorney General also contends that the damages to the crops of this claimant were caused only on low land after extra heavy rainfalls; that the State is not responsible for damages therefrom and from all the evidence this court is of the opinion that the contention of the Attorney General is correct and it is further the opinion of the court that the building of these hard roads throughout the State has been of considerable value to adjacent property owners which ought to be considered wherein there is a claim for damages as in this case.\nTherefore it is recommended that this claim be denied and the claim dismissed.\nOn March 11, 1931, upon petition for rehearing the following additional opinion was filed:\nThis claim coming on for rehearing and the court after consideration of the petition for rehearing finds no good reason to change the opinion heretofore entered. Therefore the petition for rehearing is denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. P. Field, for claimant.",
      "Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank E. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 1300\nKarl Axel Henrick Larson, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed December 16, 1930.\nRehearing denied March 11, 1931.\nE. P. Field, for claimant.\nOscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Frank E. Eagle-ton, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0493-01",
  "first_page_order": 519,
  "last_page_order": 520
}