Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

32 Ill. Ct. Cl. 643

Anderson v. State

Court of Claims of Illinois

Decided October 23, 1978

Court of Claims of Illinois · decided 1978-10-23

Cited by 1 later decisions — most recently September 1983

1 state decisions

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

““Such failure to prove the existence of a pardon results in failure of the Claimant’s complaint to state a cause of action.””

quoted by 1 later decision, including Kelly v. State

Relies on Harpstreith v. State · Mostafa v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1978-10-23

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1This cause coming to be heard on the motion of the Respondent to dismiss due notice being given and the Court being fully advised;

¶2Finds that the complaint for compensation for time unjustly served in prison is brought within the jurisdiction of the Court as set forth in Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 37, Sec. 439.8 (C), 1975 which requires as a prerequisite for recovery that the Claimant “receive a pardon from the Governor stating that such pardon is issued on the ground of innocence of the crime for which they were imprisoned.” Allegation and proof of the existence of such a pardon is a prerequisite to stating a cause of action under such statute. See, Mostafa v. State, 30 Ill.Ct.Cl. 567, 569 (1975) and Harpstreith v. State, 30 Ill.Ct.Cl. 546, 550 (1975). In the instant case the complaint fails to even allege the existence of any pardon being issued to the Claimant. Such failure to prove the existence of a pardon results in the failure of Claimant’s complaint to state a cause of action.

¶3It is hereby ordered that the motion of the Respondent to dismiss be and the same is hereby granted and the complaint of Kenneth Anderson is hereby dismissed.

/32/illctcl/643 · .json · Public domain