{
  "id": 2798938,
  "name": "W. E. O'Neil Construction Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "W. E. O'Neil Construction Co. v. State",
  "decision_date": "1933-03-06",
  "docket_number": "No. 1810",
  "first_page": "154",
  "last_page": "155",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "7 Ill. Ct. Cl. 154"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "6 Ct. Cl. 450",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "Ct. Cl.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 108,
    "char_count": 1092,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.542,
    "sha256": "1f7edc5a658ca4516fc0bd28c70a6095ac02bc818f56fbafd38af0dd711cb569",
    "simhash": "1:8606f22c968e6686",
    "word_count": 189
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:19:26.187352+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "W. E. O\u2019Neil Construction Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Thomas\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nClaimant asks an award of $11,364.32 as extra compensation for the construction of the Naval Armory at Chicago. It charges that in building the armory it was put to extra expense, not contemplated, due- to delays on the part of the State and to rise in the water level of Lake Michigan. To the declaration the State has filed a plea of former adjudication.\nThe claimant filed a claim in this court, based on the same facts and circumstances as this, to the January term, 1930, and upon a hearing thereof the same was denied at the September term, 1930, and a rehearing denied November 12, 1930. (W. E. O\u2019Neil Construction Co. vs. State, 6 Ct. Cl. 450.) The cause having once been heard and decided by this court will not be considered again.\nThe claim is denied and the case dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Thomas"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "W. E. 0 \u2019Neil Construction Co., pro se.",
      "Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 1810 \u2014\nW. E. O\u2019Neil Construction Co., Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed March 6, 1933.\nW. E. 0 \u2019Neil Construction Co., pro se.\nOscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General; Carl Dietz, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0154-01",
  "first_page_order": 174,
  "last_page_order": 175
}