ILCS » Chapter 705 · Act 505
Illinois Compiled Statutes

705 ILCS 505/22 (2026)

Every claim cognizable by the court and not otherwise sooner barred by law shall be forever barred from prosecution therein unless it is filed with the clerk of the court within the time set forth as follows:         (a) All claims arising out of a contract must be     filed within 5 years after it first accrues, saving to minors, and persons under legal disability at the time the claim accrues, in which cases the claim must be filed within 5 years from the time the disability ceases

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(705 ILCS 505/22) (from Ch. 37, par. 439.22)
    Sec. 22. Every claim cognizable by the court and not otherwise sooner barred by law shall be forever barred from prosecution therein unless it is filed with the clerk of the court within the time set forth as follows:
        (a) All claims arising out of a contract must be
    
filed within 5 years after it first accrues, saving to minors, and persons under legal disability at the time the claim accrues, in which cases the claim must be filed within 5 years from the time the disability ceases.
        (b) All claims cognizable against the State by
    
vendors of goods or services under the Illinois Public Aid Code must be filed within one year after the accrual of the cause of action, as provided in Section 11-13 of that Code.
        (c) All claims arising under paragraph (c) of Section
    
8 of this Act must be automatically heard by the court within 120 days after the person asserting such claim is either issued a certificate of innocence from the circuit court as provided in Section 2-702 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or is granted a pardon by the Governor, whichever occurs later, without the person asserting the claim being required to file a petition under Section 11 of this Act, except as otherwise provided by the Crime Victims Compensation Act. Any claims filed by the claimant under paragraph (c) of Section 8 of this Act must be filed within 2 years after the person asserting such claim is either issued a certificate of innocence as provided in Section 2-702 of the Code of Civil Procedure, or is granted a pardon by the Governor, whichever occurs later.
        (d) All claims arising under paragraph (f) of Section
    
8 of this Act must be filed within the time set forth in Section 3 of the Line of Duty Compensation Act.
        (e) All claims arising under paragraph (h) of Section
    
8 of this Act must be filed within one year of the date of the death of the guardsman or militiaman as provided in Section 3 of the Illinois National Guardsman's Compensation Act.
        (f) All claims arising under paragraph (g) of Section
    
8 of this Act must be filed within 5 years of the crime on which a claim is based as provided in Section 6.1 of the Crime Victims Compensation Act.
        (g) All claims arising from the Comptroller's refusal
    
to issue a replacement warrant pursuant to Section 10.10 of the State Comptroller Act must be filed within 5 years after the date of the Comptroller's refusal.
        (h) All other claims must be filed within 2 years
    
after it first accrues, saving to minors, and persons under legal disability at the time the claim accrues, in which case the claim must be filed within 2 years from the time the disability ceases.
        (i) The changes made to this Section by Public Act
    
100-1124 apply to claims pending on November 27, 2018 (the effective date of Public Act 100-1124) and to claims filed thereafter.
        (j) All time limitations established under this Act
    
and the rules promulgated under this Act shall be binding and jurisdictional, except upon extension authorized by law or rule and granted pursuant to a motion timely filed.
(Source: P.A. 104-188, eff. 1-1-26.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20 cases, 1988–2017 · leading case: Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 4× “On appeal, plaintiff contends her complaint should be reinstated because (1) the Court of Claims erroneously applied the two-year general statute of limitations contained in section 22(h) of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22(h) (West 2014)) instead of the five-year…”
Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 3× “On appeal, plaintiff contends her complaint should be reinstated because (1) the Court of Claims erroneously applied the two-year general statute of limitations contained in section 22(h) of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22 (West 2014)) instead of the five-year statute…”
Reyes v. Court of Claims of State of Ill., 702 N.E.2d 224 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “On May 5, 1997, the trial court granted plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari and reversed the dismissal by the Court of Claims.”
Garimella v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Illinois, 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 350 (1996). · cites it 2× “Claimant’s five-count complaint on the additional grounds that (1) counts I, II, and III are premised on a breach of contract theoxy and that no contract is aUeged or exists; (2) count IV alleges intentional infliction of emotional distress and must be dismissed for failure,…”
Glisson v. S. Illinois Univ., 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 174 (1996). · cites it 4× “Respondent’s motion is based on the statutory tort notice requirement of section 22 — 1 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22 — 1); Respondent asserts that Claimant did not comply with our rule 50(b) (74 Ill.”
Reynolds State Bank v. Off. of the State Guardian, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 332 (1997). · cites it 3× “That remaining issue is whether or not count II of the amended complaint, sounding in the tort of implied quasi-contractual indemnity, is barred by the two-year limitation of section 22 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22) or by the retroactive two-year limitation of…”
Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). · cites it 4× “On appeal, plaintiff contends her complaint should be reinstated because (1) the Court of Claims erroneously applied the two-year general statute of limitations contained in section 22(h) of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22(h) (West 2014)) instead of the five-year…”
Harry W. Kuhn Redi-Mix Concrete v. State, 45 Ill. Ct. Cl. 33 (1993). “The first issue to be considered, even before we examine the facts, is whether the Claimants gave proper notice as per section 22 — 1 of the Court of Claims Act, 705 ILCS 505/22 — 1. This Court has held: “* * ° a notice of intent to file a claim is a condition precedent to…”
Brown v. S. Illinois Univ., 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 336 (1994). “705 ILCS 505/22 — 1. This Court notes the unusual circumstance of this claim.”
Thos. M. Madden Co. v. State, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 317 (1999). “(705 ILCS 505/22(a).) The Limitations Issue This action was filed on October 19, 1995.”
Est. of Krause v. Dep't of Transp., 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 99 (1995). · cites it 3× “705 ILCS 505/22 — 1. The date of the injury was June 27, 1987; the personal representative was qualified on December 2, 1987; the notice was filed on March 1, 1988; and the complaint was filed on June 27, 1989.”
Reyes v. Court of Claims (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). · cites it 2× “On May 5, 1997, the trial court granted plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari and reversed the dismissal by the Court of Claims. The circuit court found that plaintiff's complaint in the Court of Claims had been timely filed under section 22(h) of the Court of Claims Act…”
Show all 20 citing cases →
— 705 ILCS 505/22(a) — 4 cases
Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “On appeal, plaintiff contends her complaint should be reinstated because (1) the Court of Claims erroneously applied the two-year general statute of limitations contained in section 22(h) of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22(h) (West 2014)) instead of the five-year…”
Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “On appeal, plaintiff contends her complaint should be reinstated because (1) the Court of Claims erroneously applied the two-year general statute of limitations contained in section 22(h) of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22 (West 2014)) instead of the five-year statute…”
Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “On appeal, plaintiff contends her complaint should be reinstated because (1) the Court of Claims erroneously applied the two-year general statute of limitations contained in section 22(h) of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22(h) (West 2014)) instead of the five-year…”
Thos. M. Madden Co. v. State, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 317 (1999). “(705 ILCS 505/22(a).) The Limitations Issue This action was filed on October 19, 1995.”
— 705 ILCS 505/22(f) — 1 case
Oppe v. State, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 103 (1996).
— 705 ILCS 505/22(g) — 1 case
Reynolds State Bank v. Off. of the State Guardian, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 332 (1997). “That remaining issue is whether or not count II of the amended complaint, sounding in the tort of implied quasi-contractual indemnity, is barred by the two-year limitation of section 22 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22) or by the retroactive two-year limitation of…”
— 705 ILCS 505/22(h) — 7 cases
Reyes v. Court of Claims of State of Ill., 702 N.E.2d 224 (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “On May 5, 1997, the trial court granted plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari and reversed the dismissal by the Court of Claims.”
Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “On appeal, plaintiff contends her complaint should be reinstated because (1) the Court of Claims erroneously applied the two-year general statute of limitations contained in section 22(h) of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22(h) (West 2014)) instead of the five-year…”
Krozel v. Illinois Court of Claims, 2017 IL App (1st) 162068 (Ill. App. Ct. 2017). “On appeal, plaintiff contends her complaint should be reinstated because (1) the Court of Claims erroneously applied the two-year general statute of limitations contained in section 22(h) of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/22(h) (West 2014)) instead of the five-year…”
Reyes v. Court of Claims (Ill. App. Ct. 1998). “On May 5, 1997, the trial court granted plaintiff's petition for a writ of certiorari and reversed the dismissal by the Court of Claims. The circuit court found that plaintiff's complaint in the Court of Claims had been timely filed under section 22(h) of the Court of Claims Act…”
In re Johnson, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 609 (1999).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.