{
  "id": 2853669,
  "name": "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Richard Stout, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "People v. Stout",
  "decision_date": "1968-11-22",
  "docket_number": "No. 41312",
  "first_page": "292",
  "last_page": "293",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ill. 2d 292"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "254 Ill. 360",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4688294
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/254/0360-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 Ill.2d 368",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2860661
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/38/0368-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "232 Ill. 112",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5639073
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/232/0112-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "400 Ill. 23",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5306245
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/400/0023-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "406 Ill. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2635307
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/406/0490-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 170,
    "char_count": 2273,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.769,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.808309837884654e-08,
      "percentile": 0.49651890901747553
    },
    "sha256": "a4d80d88bbad1b2b3558f620125ced3a81e05a0775b00bd02207c471897817c4",
    "simhash": "1:3979fffee07eec99",
    "word_count": 379
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:02:11.612060+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Richard Stout, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Solfisburg\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe defendant, Richard Stout, after a bench trial in the circuit court of Schuyler County, ivas convicted of violating a \u201cdisorderly conduct\u201d ordinance and a \u201cfast driving\u201d ordinance of the city of Rushville. He was fined $50 on each charge. He appeals directly to this court on the grounds that the complaints issued against him were not sufficiently specific so as to apprise him of the nature and cause of the accusation. In addition, he charges that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the convictions for \u201cdisorderly conduct\u201d and \u201cfast driving\u201d and, lastly, that the action brought against him was improperly brought in the name of The People of the State of Illinois rather than The People of the City of Rushville,\nSection 9 of article II of the constitution of the State of Illinois, 1870, gives the accused in a criminal prosecution the right \u201cto demand the nature and cause of the accusation.\u201d\nAlthough the complaints filed against the defendant are entitled \u201ccriminal complaint\u201d, they are in effect only the customary forms for initiating a prosecution to recover a penalty for violation of a municipal ordinance.\nIt is settled in this State that a prosecution to recover a penalty for violation of a municipal ordinance is not a criminal proceeding and that section 9 of article II of the constitution does not apply thereto. People v. Edge, 406 Ill. 490; City of Chicago v. Terminiello, 400 Ill. 23; City of Chicago v. Williams, 254 Il. 360; City of Chicago v. Knobel, 232 Ill. 112.\nDefendant in his brief admits that this issue was not raised at the trial. In addition, the defendant could have moved for a more specific statement of the charge if he felt that the complaint was insufficient in that respect. City of Chicago v. Joyce, 38 Ill.2d 368; City of Chicago v. Williams, 254 Ill. 360.\nThere being then no substantial constitutional questions, the cause is transferred to the Appellate Court for the Fourth Judicial District.\nCause transferred.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Solfisburg"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lewis, Blickhan & Garrison, of Quincy, for appellant.",
      "Doane G. Tron\u00e9, City Attorney, of Rushville, for the People."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 41312.\nThe People of the State of Illinois, Appellee, vs. Richard Stout, Appellant.\nOpinion filed November 22, 1968.\nLewis, Blickhan & Garrison, of Quincy, for appellant.\nDoane G. Tron\u00e9, City Attorney, of Rushville, for the People."
  },
  "file_name": "0292-01",
  "first_page_order": 302,
  "last_page_order": 303
}