Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Legacy General
Download PDF

Walter F. Rohm v. State of Illinois

5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 173 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1925-05-01 No. 848
Disposition: (No. 848-Claimant awarded $1,333.28.) Award: $1,333.28 Agency: Industrial Commission
Cite as: Walter F. Rohm v. State of Illinois, 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 173 (1925)
Legacy General 5 awarded 1920s Walter F. Rohm v. State of Illinois 5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 173 1925-05-01 (No. 848-Claimant awarded $1,333.28.) /opinions/v05-p0193-1/

WALTER F. ROHM, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

The claimant, secretary of the Industrial Commission, sought back pay for services rendered from July 1, 1923 to October 31, 1924 at the statutory salary of $5,000 per annum, having been paid only $4,000 per annum. The court found he performed his duty and awarded the balance of $1,333.28.

Claim type: Employment Back Pay

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

Headnotes

  1. FEES & SALARIES-when claimant entitled to award. A State employee

It appears that the claimant was duly appointed secretary of the Industrial Commission of the State of Illinois on the 1st day of May, 1923, and that he has been fulfilling the duties of that position up to the 1st day of July, 1923, at the salary of $5000.00 per annum, that since the 1st day of July, 1923, he has been paid for his services at the rate of $4000.00 per annum and that there is now due the claimant up to and including October 31, 1924, the sum of $1333.28.

It is the opinion of this court from the records that the claimant performed his duty and should receive compensation as fixed by statute.

Therefore, it is considered by the court that the claimant be allowed the sum of $1,333.28, balance due him on his salary.

Official volume 5 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1923–June 30, 1927)  ·  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.