{
  "id": 2803909,
  "name": "The Pioneer Creamery Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pioneer Creamery Co. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1931-04-16",
  "docket_number": "No. 1666",
  "first_page": "511",
  "last_page": "512",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 511"
    }
  ],
  "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": 136,
    "char_count": 1489,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "sha256": "f24010de9abc07efd1d7ca671e37b38d753783b3b8d4d095e430583f28996152",
    "simhash": "1:0076f267dbc40fb0",
    "word_count": 244
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:41.892765+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Pioneer Creamery Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is a claim for refund of corporate franchise tax in the sum of Three Hundred Ninety 30/100 ($390.30) Dollars, paid by claimant on June 27th, 1930.\nIt appears that claimant adopted a resolution to dissolve the said corporation at a special meeting held on July 10th, 1930, and it is alleged that such certificate for dissolution was mailed to the corporation department Secretary of State\u2019s office on or about July 15th, 1930. The Attorney General asserts that the records of the Department discloses no communication during the period of June 16th to August 5th, 1930, relative to said certificate for dissolution. The Attorney General further contends that the claimant corporation was not legally dissolved until the 25th day of August, 1930.\nThis court is of the opinion that corporations are as a rule legally advised in the conduct of their business and it would appear that they should exercise due diligence in all their corporate matters. This court, in view of the fact of the Attorney General\u2019s objections, is of the opinion that no redress can be furnished to claimant, in view of all the facts disclosed by the record in this case.\nTherefore the claim is disallowed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George H. White, for claimant.",
      "Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 1666\nThe Pioneer Creamery Company, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed April 16, 1931.\nGeorge H. White, for claimant.\nOscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl I. Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0511-02",
  "first_page_order": 537,
  "last_page_order": 538
}