{
  "id": 2760370,
  "name": "Eusebius J. Biggs, Appellant, vs. Roy F. Cummins, Director of Labor, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Biggs v. Cummins",
  "decision_date": "1959-03-20",
  "docket_number": "No. 34887",
  "first_page": "424",
  "last_page": "425",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 Ill. 2d 424"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "126 N.E.2d 208",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "5 Ill.2d 512",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2703102
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/5/0512-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N.E.2d 319",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Ill.2d 278",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        12126495
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/2/0278-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 250,
    "char_count": 2767,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.778,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.619379158305135e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4505558046048245
    },
    "sha256": "b2e0ebee8ad727c7b07e5c9bd9c8a8ca568f7351d9c60bb4bbbdac1e22c91745",
    "simhash": "1:44abb83775cdd1f0",
    "word_count": 461
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:20:45.844196+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Eusebius J. Biggs, Appellant, vs. Roy F. Cummins, Director of Labor, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nEusebius J. Biggs comes to this court again pro se as appellant, seeking to rectify some adverse rulings entered by the circuit court of Cook County. This is the third time Biggs has appealed to this court presenting the same contentions. The two previous cases are Pipe Trades, Inc. v. Rauch, 2 Ill.2d 278, 118 N.E.2d 319, and Biggs v. Cummins, 5 Ill.2d 512, 126 N.E.2d 208.\nIt is impossible to determine from appellant\u2019s brief and the abstract just what appellant is complaining about. The brief asserts that certain provisions of the Unemployment Compensation Act are unconstitutional on their face, accuses various assistants Attorney General of violation of their duties, and requests that the trial judge be held in contempt of court.\nBiggs has been coming to this court for more than ten years representing himself. Being untrained in the practice of law and unschooled in the field of coherent thinking and expression, he is most difficult to follow in both his oral and written presentation. We have patiently struggled with his labors.\nThe appellant has so concentrated upon his charges of unlawful conduct against almost everyone who had any connection with the case that it is impossible to determine what, if any, errors of the trial court are intended to be raised. For example, on page 6 of his brief he accuses one judge of falsifying a court record and on page 8 he accuses the Attorney General and circuit court of \u201cconspiring to obtain a judgment by withholding evidence,\u201d and on page 9 he accuses the Attorney General\u2019s assistant \u201cof altering the record,\u201d and on page 11 he requests that another judge be held in contempt of court \u201cfor violating the Criminal Statute known as falsifications of the court record.\u201d On page 12 he accuses an assistant Attorney General of dishonesty and making \u201cfalse and untrue statements to the court.\u201d\nThis court should not be called upon to consider appeals thus presented. We deem it appropriate to reiterate the good advice that our Chief Justice gave Biggs at the conclusion of his recent appearance in our court, namely, \u201cYou should employ counsel to assist you in future litigation in this court as well as the lower court.\u201d\nThe plaintiff violated the rules of this court in the preparation of the abstract and briefs, and they contained scandalous and impertinent material. Consequently, the motion to strike the same will be allowed and the appeal dismissed.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. J. Biggs, of Chicago, pro se.",
      "Latham Castle, Attorney General, of Springfield, (William C. Wines, Raymond S. Sarnow, and A. Zola Groves, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 34887.\nEusebius J. Biggs, Appellant, vs. Roy F. Cummins, Director of Labor, Appellee.\nOpinion filed March 20, 1959\nRehearing denied May 19, 1959.\nE. J. Biggs, of Chicago, pro se.\nLatham Castle, Attorney General, of Springfield, (William C. Wines, Raymond S. Sarnow, and A. Zola Groves, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0424-01",
  "first_page_order": 424,
  "last_page_order": 425
}