IIT RESEARCH INSTITUTE, Claimant, 2). THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Respondent.

Case summary

Claimant sought payment under a contract with the Department of Business and Economic Development. The court granted summary judgment because the respondent failed to respond to requests for admission, establishing the contract, performance, and non-payment, and awarded $14,092.45.

Claim type: Contract

Statutes cited: Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 216

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

Headnotes

CoNTRAcrs-summary judgment for Chimant-contract performed. The Court entered summary judgment for the Claimant and an award was granted for the amount due for contract as there was no genuine issue as to any material fact and State had accepted Claimant’s performance of contract.

SCHIFF, HARDIN & WAITE, for Claimant. TYRONE C. FAHNER, Attorney General (CARL J. KLEIN, Assistant Attorney General, of counsel), for Respondent.

POCH,J.

This cause coming to be heard on motion of the Claimant, IIT Research Institute, for summary judgment, it appearing that due notice having been given, and the Court being fully advised.

The Court finds that on June 13, 1980, the Claimant filed a request for admission of facts and genuineness of documents and although Respondent sought and received an extension of time to September 22, 1980, to respond, no response was filed. Therefore, pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 216 (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. llOA, par. 216), the following facts are admitted: [*151] 1. On or about June 15,1977, Respondent, acting by and through its Department of Business and Economics Development, entered into a written contract (hereinafter the “contract”) with Claimant. 2. Exhibit A attached to the amended complaint herein is a true and correct copy of the contract. 3. The contract was executed for Respondent by Mr. Donald L. Duster. 4. Mr. Donald L. Duster was, at the time of execution of the contract, Director of the Department of Business and Economic Development. 5. Mr. Donald L. Duster had authority to execute the contract on behalf of the Department of Business and Economic Development. 6. After execution, the contract was approved by Respondent’s Bureau of the Budget. 7 . At the time of execution of the contract, adequate funds had been appropriated by the General Assembly, and were available, to discharge Respondent’s obligations under the contract. 8. The appropriation and fund number were as follows: Administration of Energy Programs 000-414505-1200-0000 9. Claimant properly and satisfactorily performed all of its duties and obligations under the contract. 10. Respondent accepted Claimant’s performance of the contract. 11. Claimant has made demand upon Respondent for the sum of $14,092.45 in payment for Claimant’s performance of the contract.

[*152] I 12. Respondent has paid no money to Claimant in respect of Claimant’s performance of the contract.

The Court finds that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and It is hereby ordered that Claimant’s motion for summary judgment be and the same is hereby granted; It is further ordered that the sum of fourteen thousand ninety two and 45/100 ($14,092.45) dollars be and is hereby awarded to IIT Research Institute.

*- . .