Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Albert G. Stephens v. State of Illinois

1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 299 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1903-03-18
Disposition: denied
Cite as: Albert G. Stephens v. State of Illinois, 1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 299 (1903)
Legacy General 1 denied 1900s Albert G. Stephens v. State of Illinois 1 Ill. Ct. Cl. 299 1903-03-18 denied /opinions/v01-p0329-1/

ALBERT G. STEPHENS v. THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Case summary

Claimant sought recovery for injuries received while serving as a member of Battery A, I.N.G., at Camp Lincoln on July 29, 1900, in the same explosion that injured Baisley and Rupert. The court followed Bailey v. State of Illinois and rejected the claim for the reasons assigned in that case, without prejudice to other relief.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Cases cited: Bailey v. State of Illinois; Baisley v. State of Illinois

AI-generated summary from the opinion text — may contain errors. The opinion text and PDF above are the official record.

Headnotes

  1. SMITH-Personal injuries received while in the service. Bai-

ALBERT G. STEPHENS

v.

THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

Opinion filed March 18, 1903.

SMITH-Personal injuries received while in the service. Bailey v. The State of Illinois followed: The circumstances and material facts in this case are the same as in Bailey v. the State of Illinois and for the reasons therein assigned this claim is also rejected.

The claimant herein seeks recovery for injuries received while serving as a member of Battery A, I. N. G., at Camp Lincoln, July 29, 1900. This being the same explosion in which Charles Baisley and Jesse Rupert were also seriously injured, the circumstances and material facts were fully set forth in the opinion filed by this Commission in the claim of the said Charles Baisley.

For the reasons therein assigned this claim is also rejected, without prejudice, however, to other relief; and attention is called to the circumstance that this claimant, as did Baisley and Rupert in their claims before this Commission, has doubled the amount sought [*306] in the original House bill introduced for his reliefwhich provided for an appropriation of $500 in place of the $1,000 herein sought.

It may be reasonably assumed therefore that even in the estimation of the claimant, $500 should be the limit in attempting to fix a fair compensation for the injuries received by the claimant.

Official volume 1 (Compiled and Reported by the Authority of the State of Illinois 1905)  ·  All opinions in this volume  ·  Also on CourtListener

This text is OCR/derived from the official volume and may contain errors. The PDF is authoritative. Boundary pages shared with the adjacent opinion are reproduced whole, so the page image may show a neighbor's opening or closing lines; the transcript text itself is opinion-scoped. See About & sources.