{
  "id": 4821004,
  "name": "LEONTYNE WOODSON, Appellee, v. THE CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Woodson v. Chicago Board of Education",
  "decision_date": "1993-02-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 73354",
  "first_page": "391",
  "last_page": "397",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "154 Ill. 2d 391"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "185 Ill. App. 3d 248",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2646848
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "250-51"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/185/0248-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "45 Ill. 2d 388",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2896944
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "397-98"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/45/0388-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 351,
    "char_count": 7370,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.805,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.369960614713622e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6380953098037762
    },
    "sha256": "706320c125a4c74c274881c03876c10225fe7256a4de146b64ca9fbeed96b7fa",
    "simhash": "1:f209c1f65d864585",
    "word_count": 1191
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:08.023695+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "LEONTYNE WOODSON, Appellee, v. THE CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE HEIPLE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis appeal arises from a default judgment which was entered by the circuit court of Cook County on December 14, 1987, against the Chicago board of education in the amount of $75,000. The judgment was based upon injuries Leontyne Woodson, plaintiff, sustained while on a school playground. The board contends that the default judgment was entered without proper notice, that the existence of the judgment was fraudulently concealed and that the judgment was void in that it was based upon a complaint which failed to state a cause of action. Additionally, the board contends that the $75,000 judgment was in excess of the amount requested, included punitive damages, and that the doctrine of laches prevents plaintiff from enforcing the judgment.\nThis appeal arises from the following procedural facts:\nDecember 3, 1983 \u2014 plaintiff injured on school playground.\nDecember 31, 1986 \u2014 complaint filed against the Chicago board of education claiming damages in excess of $15,000.\nJanuary 16, 1987 \u2014 board served with summons, but failed to appear.\nMay 13, 1987 \u2014 plaintiff wrote the board a letter stating that if the board did not respond within 10 days plaintiff would move for a default judgment.\nJuly 2, 1987 \u2014 order of default entered against board.\nDecember 14, 1987 \u2014 plaintiff proved up damages to trial judge. Default judgment entered for $75,000.\nDecember 4, 1989 \u2014 plaintiff filed affidavit for nonwage garnishment against the board.\nDecember 15, 1989 \u2014 board served with garnishment summons,\nDecember 20, 1989 \u2014 plaintiff filed \u201cCitation to Discover Assets.\u201d\nDecember 26, 1989 \u2014 board moved to quash garnishment as a violation of the School Code,\nDecember 27, 1989 \u2014 trial court quashed garnishment and directed plaintiff to proceed in conformity with the School Code,\nJanuary 11, 1990 \u2014 trial court\u2019s hearing on plaintiff\u2019s citation to discover assets was continued until January 29,1990.\nJanuary 29, 1990 \u2014 plaintiff filed a \u201cPetition for Enforcement of Judgment and for Writ of Mandamus\u201d pursuant to the School Code.\nFebruary 26, 1990 \u2014 board filed \u201cResponse to Plaintiff\u2019s Petition for Enforcement of Judgment\u201d raising a variety of defenses asking that the judgment either be set aside or be enforced as to only $15,000.\nMarch 6, 1990 \u2014 plaintiff filed a motion to strike the board\u2019s response arguing that it was an untimely section 2 \u2014 1401 petition, as it was filed more than two years after entry of the default judgment,\nMarch 6, 1990 \u2014 trial court characterized the board\u2019s response as a \u201cPetition Attacking Underlying Judgment\u201d and transferred the matter to the trial judge who entered the default judgment.\nMay 8, 1990 \u2014 trial court, considering the board\u2019s \u201cPetition Attacking Underlying Judgment\u201d and plaintiff\u2019s motion to strike said petition, entered an order denying both,\nMay 11, 1990 \u2014 board filed notice of appeal from May 8,1990, order,\nMay 14, 1990 \u2014 board moved for stay of enforcement of judgment pending appeal of May 8, 1990, order.\nMay 18, 1990 \u2014 plaintiff filed motion to compel compliance with citation to discover assets and trial court entered an order directing the board to respond to plaintiff\u2019s \u201cPetition for Enforcement of Judgment and Mandamus.\u201d\nJune 1,1990 \u2014 board filed an answer to plaintiff\u2019s petition for enforcement and mandamus raising the affirmative defense of laches.\nJune 19, 1990 \u2014 plaintiff moved to strike the defense of laches and the trial court, considering plaintiff\u2019s petition for enforcement of the judgment and for a writ of mandamus and also plaintiff\u2019s motion to strike the board\u2019s laches defense, granted the striking of the laches defense and ordered the board to answer as to the availability of funds to immediately pay the judgment to plaintiff.\nJune 20, 1990 \u2014 plaintiff filed a response to the board\u2019s motion to stay enforcement of the May 8, 1990, order, and a trial court order was entered staying enforcement of the May 8, 1990, order pending appeal.\nSeptember 27, 1990 \u2014 appellate court dismissed the board\u2019s appeal of the May 8, 1990, trial court order for want of prosecution.\nNovember 21, 1990 \u2014 trial court terminated stay of May 8,1990, order.\nDecember 11, 1990 \u2014 plaintiff moved to reinstate collection proceedings and trial court ordered the board to comply with the June 19,1990, order.\nJanuary 10, 1991 \u2014 board filed a notice of appeal from the orders of June 19, 1990, and December 11, 1990.\nMarch 14, 1991 \u2014 board filed an amended emergency motion for reinstatement of its appeal of the May 8,1990, order,\nApril 11, 1991 \u2014 appellate court granted the motion vacating its earlier dismissal, reinstated the appeal, and consolidated the appeal of the May 8, 1990, order with the appeal from the June 19, 1990, and December 11, 1990, orders,\nMay 3, 1991 \u2014 plaintiff filed a motion with this court for a supervisory order stating that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to reinstate the appeal,\nMay 14, 1991 \u2014 this court denied the motion for supervisory order,\nDecember 5, 1991 \u2014 appellate court issued an unpublished order dismissing the appeal and holding that the.board could not appeal from the May 8, 1990, order as it was not a final and appealable order since it left pending before the trial court plaintiff\u2019s petition for enforcement of judgment and writ of mandamus', additionally, the board failed to file a timely notice of appeal from the June 19, 1990, order since this order was a final order as the only matter pending following this order was whether the proceedings should be stayed pending appeal of the May 8,1990, order.\nJune 3, 1992 \u2014 this court allowed the board\u2019s petition for leave to appeal (134 Ill. 2d R. 315).\nWhile we do not agree with all of the findings and conclusions contained in the unpublished order of the appellate court (Nos. 1 \u2014 90\u20141411, 1 \u2014 91\u20140204 cons, (unpublished order under Supreme Court Rule 23)), we nonetheless affirm the dismissal of the appeal for the following reasons. The trial court order of May 8, 1990, was a final order. When the appeal of that order was dismissed for want of prosecution on September 27, 1990, and a petition for rehearing was not filed within 21 days, the dismissal order became final and the appellate court lost jurisdiction to consider additional arguments stemming from the May 8, 1990, order. The trial court order of June 19, 1990, on the other hand, was an interlocutory order which lacked the specific findings required under supreme court rules so as to render it appealable. Hence, the appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider the appeal of that order. The same was true of the trial court order of December 11, 1990. People v. Mallett (1970), 45 Ill. 2d 388, 397-98; Waitcus v. Village of Gilberts (1989), 185 Ill. App. 3d 248, 250-51; 134 Ill. 2d Rules 304(a), 367(b).\nAccordingly, the judgment of the appellate court, dismissing the appeal, is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nJUSTICE McMORROW took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE HEIPLE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jones, Ware & Grenard, of Chicago (Mitchell Ware, Frank M. Grenard, Michael G. Thomas, Andrea Buford, Gerald Zansitis and Dianne McCollough, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Robert Habib, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 73354.\nLEONTYNE WOODSON, Appellee, v. THE CHICAGO BOARD OF EDUCATION, Appellant.\nOpinion filed February 18, 1993.\nRehearing denied March 29, 1993.\nMcMORROW, J., took no part.\nJones, Ware & Grenard, of Chicago (Mitchell Ware, Frank M. Grenard, Michael G. Thomas, Andrea Buford, Gerald Zansitis and Dianne McCollough, of counsel), for appellant.\nRobert Habib, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0391-01",
  "first_page_order": 401,
  "last_page_order": 407
}