Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
Line of Duty Compensation
Download PDF

Fisher v. State of Illinois

6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 298 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1929-05-09 No. 1494
Disposition: (No. 1494-Claimant awarded $4,175.00.) Award: $4,175.00
Cite as: Fisher v. State of Illinois, 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 298 (1929)
Line of Duty Compensation 6 awarded 1920s Fisher v. State of Illinois 6 Ill. Ct. Cl. 298 1929-05-09 (No. 1494-Claimant awarded $4,175.00.) /opinions/v06-p0319-2/

FLORENCE FISHER, Claimant, v. STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought compensation for the death of her husband, a highway patrolman killed in the line of duty. The court, with the Attorney General's admission of facts, awarded $4,175.00 under the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Claim type: Line Of Duty Death

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

Headnotes

  1. PERSONAL INJURY-when award will be made-Workmen's Compensa- OSCAR E. CARLSTROM, Attorney General; FRANK R. EAGLE-

It appears that Robert L. Fisher the husband of the claimant was an employee of the State of Illinois and in the course of his employment on April 17th, 1929, as a highway patrolman at a point two miles north of Rossville he was struck by a north bound automobile and killed. There is no contention about the employment of the claimant's husband or that he was killed in the course of employment and that he was receiving $175.00 per month. It does appear further that said decedent left surviving him his widow this claimant and one child aged 6 years and also another child a stepson. [*299]

The Attorney General coming and admitting the facts as above set forth and setting forth that measuring the damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act that claimant ought to be allowed the sum of $4,175.00.

This court therefore recommends that claimant be allowed the sum of Four Thousand One Hundred Seventy-five ($4,- 175.00) Dollars.

Official volume 6 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed between July 1, 1927–June 30, 1931)  ·  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.