{
  "id": 2807781,
  "name": "Ralph Yocum, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent",
  "name_abbreviation": "Yocum v. State",
  "decision_date": "1936-12-08",
  "docket_number": "No. 2910",
  "first_page": "337",
  "last_page": "339",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "9 Ill. Ct. Cl. 337"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "354 Ill. 234",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5290826
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/354/0234-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "259 Ill. 549",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4727760
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/259/0549-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "182 Ill. 135",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3214381
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/182/0135-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ill. 148",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2721035
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/95/0148-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 210,
    "char_count": 2666,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.553,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08461728849828697
    },
    "sha256": "e42e6f5b44105babb23584d76d15c8d17410799284b82d74143b3acd056ca83b",
    "simhash": "1:3811ec39e7063409",
    "word_count": 485
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:12.493466+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ralph Yocum, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Hollerich\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nClaimant filed his complaint herein on June 2nd, 1936, and alleges therein that on February 6th, 1936, he was driving Ms motor vehicle in a southerly direction on S. B. I. Route No. 2 near the Village of Grand Detour in Lee County, Illinois; that as he approached the Grand Detour bridge over the Rock River, and while he was in the exercise of all due care and caution, and while he was driving on his own proper side of the road, his motor vehicle collided with a truck owned by the respondent, and controlled and operated by its servants and agents; that said truck was carelessly and negligently parked on said highway without any signals of any kind to warn travelers thereof; that by reason of the carelessness and negligence of the servants and agents of the respondent as aforesaid, the motor vehicle of the claimant was damaged, and he sustained personal injuries, for which he asks an award.\nThe Attorney General has moved to dismiss the case for the reason that there is no liability on the part of the respondent under the facts set forth in the complaint.\nWe have held in numerous cases that the State, in the maintenance of its hard surfaced highways, is engaged in a governmental function.\nChumbler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 136.\nHighland vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 384.\nBucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241.\nWilson vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 72.\nWetherholt vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 100.\nWe have also repeatedly held that the. State, in the exercise of its governmental functions, is not liable for the negligence of its servants and agents in the absence of a statute making it so liable.\nBraun vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 104.\nChumbler vs. State, 6 C. C. R. 138.\nBucholz vs. State, 7 C. C. R. 241.\nBaumgart vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 220.\nChildress vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 223.\nRyan vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 361.\nKramer vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 31.\nJohnson vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 67.\nWilson vs. State, 8 C. C. R. 72.\nThe law as above set forth is recognized in numerous decisions of our Supreme Court.\nHollenbeck vs. County of Winnebago, 95 Ill. 148.\nCity of Chicago vs. Williams, 182 Ill. 135.\nMinear vs. State Board of Agriculture, 259 Ill. 549.\nGebhardt vs. Village of LaGrange Park, 354 Ill. 234.\nThere is no statute making the State liable under the facts set forth in the complaint, and the motion of the Attorney General must therefore be sustained.\nMotion to dismiss sustained. Case dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Hollerich"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Martin J. Gannon, for claimant.",
      "Otto Keener, Attorney General; John Kasserman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 2910\nRalph Yocum, Claimant, vs. State of Illinois, Respondent.\nOpinion filed December 8, 1936.\nMartin J. Gannon, for claimant.\nOtto Keener, Attorney General; John Kasserman, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0337-01",
  "first_page_order": 357,
  "last_page_order": 359
}