Tunk v. State
Court of Claims of Illinois
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Sommer, J.
This cause comes to be heard on the Respondent’s motion to dismiss, and this Court being fully advised in the premises, finds that Robert Airdo was driving the Complainant’s automobile when an accident occurred injuring the Complainant and damaging the automobile; that the Claimant has not made a claim against Robert Airdo and now cannot do so, as the claim is barred by the statute of limitations. Additionally, this Court finds that there are no facts before this Court at this time to indicate negligence on the part of Robert Airdo.
The Respondent argues…
2Cited by5 opinions
- Gipson v. StateCourt of Claims of Illinois · 1999
- Byrd v. StateCourt of Claims of Illinois · 1997
- Forms World Stock Products, Inc. v. StateCourt of Claims of Illinois · 1998
- Stupp Bros. Bridge & Iron Co. v. StateCourt of Claims of Illinois · 1998
- Vandenbush v. StateCourt of Claims of Illinois · 1996