{
  "id": 2807402,
  "name": "James Cunningham, Son & Company, 1322; A. G. Spalding & Bros., 1323; Blaw-Knox Company, 1324; Certain-Teed Products Corporation, 1325; Dennison Manufacturing Co., 1326; Graton & Knight Company, 1327; The R. M. Hollingshead Co., 1328; United Profit Sharing Corporation, 1329; United States Envelope Company, 1330, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "James Cunningham, Son & Co. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1931-03-11",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "495",
  "last_page": "496",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 495"
    }
  ],
  "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": 1477,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.584,
    "sha256": "293d6a93aaa7e63306c2fa774b1c977ed0f3e1a0ba173c73f242637e6f623bed",
    "simhash": "1:8136efad2bac2e28",
    "word_count": 230
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:41.892765+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James Cunningham, Son & Company, 1322; A. G. Spalding & Bros., 1323; Blaw-Knox Company, 1324; Certain-Teed Products Corporation, 1325; Dennison Manufacturing Co., 1326; Graton & Knight Company, 1327; The R. M. Hollingshead Co., 1328; United Profit Sharing Corporation, 1329; United States Envelope Company, 1330, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nBy request of claimants the above cases have been combined as they are all of a similar nature and involve similar principles.\nIt appears that the claimants complain that the Secretary of State of Illinois wrongfully collected franchise taxes in each instance and therefore wish to recover back the taxes so alleged to be wrongfully collected.\nIn certain of the cases, the Attorney General raises the question of the Statute of Limitation which in the court\u2019s opinion has merit. However, the strongest contention and which the court believes is a good defense is that claimants did not proceed with their remedy at law. This is the position taken by this court in numerous cases heretofore, passed on and we fail to find any reason in these claims where this court should depart from that rule.\nTherefore this court recommends that all of the above named and numbered claims be disallowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown, Hay & Stephens, for claimants.",
      "Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James Cunningham, Son & Company, 1322; A. G. Spalding & Bros., 1323; Blaw-Knox Company, 1324; Certain-Teed Products Corporation, 1325; Dennison Manufacturing Co., 1326; Graton & Knight Company, 1327; The R. M. Hollingshead Co., 1328; United Profit Sharing Corporation, 1329; United States Envelope Company, 1330, Claimants, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed March 11, 1931.\nBrown, Hay & Stephens, for claimants.\nOscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0495-01",
  "first_page_order": 521,
  "last_page_order": 522
}