Court Opinion

ID: 9732710
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:32:38.397949+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:31.793149
License: Public Domain

CHIEF JUSTICE CLARK, dissenting: I disagree with the majority that the plaintiffs should be required to bring this suit in the Court of Claims. The Court of Claims is a part of the legislative branch of government. It is not a court of law. In the Court of Claims, a claimant-taxpayer does not have a right to a trial by jury. (See S.J. Groves & Sons Co. v. State (1982), 93 Ill. 2d 397.) Also, once a claimant has obtained a favorable decision in the Court of Claims, that decision must then be presented to the General Assembly, where an appropriation is a prerequisite for payment of the claim. This is not a suit against the State, a suit which should be cloaked with the doctrine of sovereign immunity. The appellate court was correct in holding that the plaintiffs’ cause of action was grounded in fraud. Because I believe the appellate court was correct, I would hold this suit to be outside the perimeters of the Court of Claims Act. In Senn Park Nursing Center v. Miller (1984), 104 Ill. 2d 169, 188, this court stated: “We believe that in this case, where the defendant officer acted in excess of his statutory authority, the rights of the plaintiffs to be free from the consequences of his action outweigh the interest of the State which is served by the sovereign immunity doctrine.” In Senn Park we also quoted from Sass v. Kramer (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 485, wherein it was stated: “While legal official acts of State officers are in effect acts of the State itself, illegal acts performed by the officers are not, and when a State officer performs illegally ***, a suit may be maintained against the officer and is not an action against the State of Illinois.” (Emphasis added.) 72 Ill. 2d 485, 492. I believe that the complaint in this case alleged facts sufficient to support a cause of action for fraud — an illegal act by a State officer. It is alleged in the amended complaint that the defendant made a false statement regarding the amount of money to be won. It is further alleged in the amended complaint that the defendant “misrepresent[ed] to plaintiffs” what the amount was, that the plaintiffs relied on that statement and were induced to purchase tickets, and that their reliance and purchase of those tickets is what caused their injury. Because a fraudulent act by a State officer is in excess of his statutory authority, this suit is not a suit against the State, the doctrine of sovereign immunity is inapplicable, and the motion to dismiss was improperly allowed. What is really at issue in this case is the trust and faith of the people of this State who purchase lottery tickets believing that since the lottery is run by the State, it will be run properly. Many people, who may not otherwise spend their hard-earned money, trust that a State-run lottery will be fair. The State should be beyond reproach in something like this because it is important for people to have faith in their government. I believe the decision in this case is unjust for the above-stated reasons, and therefore I respectfully dissent. JUSTICE SIMON joins in this dissent.