Illinois Court of Claims Opinions
General Court of Claims
Download PDF

Joseph Weaver v. State of Illinois

34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 233 Illinois Court of Claims Filed 1981-03-06 No. 80-CC-1024
Disposition: (No. 80-CC-1024-Claimdismissed.)
Cite as: Joseph Weaver v. State of Illinois, 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 233 (1981)
General Court of Claims 34 dismissed 1980s Joseph Weaver v. State of Illinois 34 Ill. Ct. Cl. 233 1981-03-06 (No. 80-CC-1024-Claimdismissed.) /opinions/v34-p0333-1/

JOSEPH WEAVER, Claimant, v . THE STATE O FILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant alleged injury on July 7-8, 1977, but did not file notice within six months as required by statute; the court found no legal disability to excuse the notice requirement and granted the motion to dismiss.

Claim type: Personal Injury Negligence

Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22-1

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

Headnotes

  1. P RACTICE AND PRocEDum-complaint dismissed for failure to give timely notice. The Claimant’s claim was dismissd for failure to give timely notice, notwithstanding the contention that Claimant was under legal disability and that the notice given was therefore timely, as alleged disability was not the subject of a court order finding Claimant incompetent.

This matter comes before the Court upon motion of Respondent to dismiss the claim heretofore filed.

Respondent’s motion states that notice was not filed within six months of the alleged date of injury, as required by section 22-1 of the Court of Claims Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22-1.

The complaint alleges that the injury occurred on the 7th and 8th day of July, 1977, and that on March 16, 1979, Claimant filed a notice of personal injury, as required by the above statute.

Claimant, in answer to Respondent’s motion to dismiss, states that he was under a commitment order of the Circuit Court of Cook County and therefore was not required to give the notice under the disability section of the statute above set forth.

Respondent calls attention to the fact that Claimant attempted to verify his own complaint which, in the opinion of Respondent, would be contrary to the disability statute. Respondent further takes the position that if Claimant is under legal disability, then his complaint should have been filed by his conservator.

It is the Court’s opinion that the disability referred [*234] to, which would relieve the Claimant of giving notice as required by section 22-1 of the Court of Claims Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 37, par. 439.22-1, is a legal disability when a Claimant has been found incompetent by a Court order.

It is hereby ordered:

That Respondent’s motion to dismiss be, and the same is, granted and this cause is dismissed.

Official volume 34 (Containing cases in which opinions were filed and orders of dismissal entered, without opinion for: Fiscal Year 1981 – July 1, 1980–June 30, 1981)  ·  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.