{
  "id": 2811331,
  "name": "James M. Purcell, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Purcell v. State",
  "decision_date": "1936-11-10",
  "docket_number": "No. 2493",
  "first_page": "320",
  "last_page": "321",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 320"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "332 Ill. 386",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5213197
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/332/0386-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "329 Ill. 543",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5201093
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/329/0543-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "322 Ill. 511",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 Ill. 43",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5102390
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/309/0043-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 Ill. 262",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4853171
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/276/0262-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 Ill. 114",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2409973
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/275/0114-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 202,
    "char_count": 2434,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.517,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08465223262051186
    },
    "sha256": "f4f10ab17118de51b203570b17db2cdda3510e7641b1dbc750eba68d454a85cc",
    "simhash": "1:c6bda2d5892fdf17",
    "word_count": 411
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:12.493466+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James M. Purcell, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Hollbrich\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPrior to and on April 20th, 1932 claimant was employed by the respondent as an attendant in the psychiatric ward of the Research and Educational Hospital located at 1819 West Polk Street, Chicago, Illinois.\nOn the last mentioned date, while in the performance of his duties, and while standing on a chair for the purpose of closing and sealing a transom in the fumigating clothes room, claimant slipped and fell, and thereby sustained a fracture of the upper end of the right humerus.\nClaimant was treated at the hospital for four days and then went to his home, where he remained until June 29th, 1932, at which time he returned to his former employment.\nOn August 27th, 1934 claimant filed his complaint herein, in which he seeks to recover compensation for the injuries so sustained by him as aforesaid.\nThe Attorney General contends that the claim should be dismissed for the reason that claim for compensation was not made within six months after the accident, and application for compensation was not filed within one year after the date of the injury, or within one year after the date of the last payment of compensation.\nIf claimant has any right to an award, it is by virtue of the terms and provisions of the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act of this State, and in order to be entitled to an award, he must bring himself within the provisions of such Act.\nThe record clearly shows that claim, for compensation, was not made and application for compensation was not filed within the time required by the Compensation Act. Our Supreme Court has held in numerous cases that the making of claim for compensation and the filing of application therefor within the time required by the Workmen\u2019s Compensation Act is jurisdictional. Haiselden vs. Ind. Com., 275 Ill. 114; Bushnell vs. Ind. Com., 276 Ill. 262; Inland Rubber Co. vs. Ind. Com., 309 Ill. 43; Chicago Board of Underwriters vs. Ind. Com., 322 Ill. 511; Duquoin School District vs. Ind. Com., 329 Ill. 543; City of Rochelle vs. Ind. Com., 332 Ill. 386.\nUnder the facts appearing in the record we have no authority to allow an award, and the case is therefore dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Hollbrich"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "McFarland, Morgan & McFarland, for claimant.",
      "Otto Keener, Attorney General; Glenn A. Trevor, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 2493\nJames M. Purcell, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed November 10, 1936.\nMcFarland, Morgan & McFarland, for claimant.\nOtto Keener, Attorney General; Glenn A. Trevor, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0320-01",
  "first_page_order": 340,
  "last_page_order": 341
}