Court of Claims of Illinois, 1914

Bauman v. State

Bauman v. State
Court of Claims of Illinois · Decided November 19, 1914
2 Ill. Ct. Cl. 276; 1914 Ill. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 16

Counsel

Chipperfield & Chipperfield, Browne & Wiley, Duncan, Doyle & O’Conor, Howard H. Bayne, George P. Hills, Gleim & Colwell, for Claimant. j, P. J. Lneey, Attorney General, and Arthur R. Roy, Assistant Attorney General, (Stead, Woodward & Hibbs, of Counsel), for State. >

Bauman v. State

Opinion of the Court

This is one of the so-called Utica bridge cases, and its decision is controlled by the decisions of the Morrissey and Farmer cases.

The attending physician testified that there was a laceration of the scalp with no other injury. Claimant complains of headaches, and says she cannot do heavy work.

It is the judgment of the Court, that the claim be denied, without prejudice to the right of claimant to prey sent her claim to the legislature, and with the state - ment, that if it were within our power, we would award to claimant the sum of one hundred dollars.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.