ILCS » Chapter 705 · Act 505
Illinois Compiled Statutes

705 ILCS 505/25 (2026)

Any person who files a claim in the court shall, before seeking final determination of his or her claim exhaust all other remedies and sources of recovery whether administrative or judicial; except that failure to file or pursue actions against State employees, acting within the scope of their employment, shall not be a defense

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IL-ILGAilga.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(705 ILCS 505/25) (from Ch. 37, par. 439.24-5)
    Sec. 25. Any person who files a claim in the court shall, before seeking final determination of his or her claim exhaust all other remedies and sources of recovery whether administrative or judicial; except that failure to file or pursue actions against State employees, acting within the scope of their employment, shall not be a defense.
(Source: P.A. 83-345.)

    
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23 cases, 1994–2020 · leading case: Blumstein v. State, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 186 (1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Blumstein v. State, 47 Ill. Ct. Cl. 186 (1995). · cites it 3× “Procedural History of this Case This case was placed on general continuance on October 5, 1987, pursuant to section 25 of our Act (705 ILCS 505/25) and section 790.60 of our Regulations (74 Ill.”
Gipson v. State, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 54 (1999). · cites it 3× “Claimant petitioned for rehearing, urging that exhaustion of remedies, required by section 25 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/25), is not a jurisdictional requirement and that the requirement was waived because the Respondent never raised the issue in this case.”
Wilson v. State, 46 Ill. Ct. Cl. 20 (1994). “The most interesting theory of the State is that the Claimant failed to exhaust all other remedies and sources of recovery pursuant to section 25 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/25). We find that the Claimant did, in fact, fail to exhaust her other remedies.”
Hyche v. State, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 375 (1999). “(See section 25 of Court of Claims Act, 705 ILCS 505/25). The record, however, reflects the dismissal of his appeal to the IDOC Administrative Review Board because Mr.”
Devaney v. State, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 461 (1996). “Exhaustion of all available remedies is specifically required for all claims pursuant to section 25 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/25): “Any person who files a claim in the court shall, before seeking final determination of his or her claim[,] exhaust all other…”
Bortone v. Court of Claims, 2020 IL App (1st) 190853-U (Ill. App. Ct. 2020). · cites it 2× “In the amended complaint, Bortone asserted that he had exhausted his administrative and judicial remedies, as required by section 25 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/25 (West 2016)), before filing his amended complaint in the Court of Claims.”
Taylor v. State, 48 Ill. Ct. Cl. 369 (1995). “This claim is before us on the Respondents motion to dismiss which asserts three grounds: (1) failure to exhaust remedies (as required by section 25 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/25), and our rules); (2) failure to state a cause of action; and (3) lack of subject…”
Hughes v. State, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 56 (1997). “(705 ILCS 505/25, 74 Ill. Admin. Code 790.”
Davis v. State, 49 Ill. Ct. Cl. 93 (1996). “Both section 25 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/25) and section 790.60 of the Court of Claims Regulations (74 Ill.”
Rubidoux v. Ne. Illinois Universities, 51 Ill. Ct. Cl. 275 (1998). “This rule is statutory and mandatory (section 25 of the Court of Claims Act; 705 ILCS 505/25) and is also implemented under section 790.”
Serrano v. State, 52 Ill. Ct. Cl. 367 (1999). “These claims are before us on the Respondents section 2 — 619 motion to dismiss the claims which asserts: (1) a jurisdictional failure to exhaust administrative remedies, as required by section 25 of the Court of Claims Act (705 ILCS 505/25) and our implementing Rule 60 (74 111.”
Sangosti v. State, 50 Ill. Ct. Cl. 12 (1996). · cites it 3× “The single-vehicle accident case is before us for final decision after trial, which was held before Commissioner Rochford, following our denial of the Respondents motion to dismiss, which was predicated on our exhaustion of alternative sources of recovery requirement (under…”
Show all 23 citing cases →
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.