{
  "id": 5405954,
  "name": "THE COUNTY OF DU PAGE, Appellee, v. RICHARD J. KUSSEL, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "County of Du Page v. Kussel",
  "decision_date": "1974-03-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 46065",
  "first_page": "190",
  "last_page": "192",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "57 Ill. 2d 190"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "346 Ill. 184",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5265124
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/346/0184-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "18 Ill.2d 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5328392
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/18/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 Ill.2d 525",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2733398
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/21/0525-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill. App. 3d 272",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2854260
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/12/0272-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 226,
    "char_count": 3138,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.84,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.284616430089508e-08,
      "percentile": 0.38727431599294015
    },
    "sha256": "11e243f9f6f6326b0253135683ef4cee55b8d50b59ac79a08a2c4501240fae34",
    "simhash": "1:833bb883da4faf70",
    "word_count": 496
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:24:23.868882+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "THE COUNTY OF DU PAGE, Appellee, v. RICHARD J. KUSSEL, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThe circuit court of Du Page County, following a bench trial, entered judgment in favor of plaintiff, County of Du Page, and against the defendant-counterplaintiff, Richard J. Kussel, in the amount of $152.18 on its complaint, and in favor of plaintiff and against defendant on defendant\u2019s counterclaim. Defendant appealed and the appellate court affirmed in part, but reversed that part of the judgment which denied defendant the injunctive relief sought in his counterclaim. (12 Ill. App. 3d 272.) We allowed defendant\u2019s petition for leave to appeal. The facts are accurately stated in the opinion of the appellate court and will be restated here only to the extent necessary to this opinion.\nThis litigation was commenced by plaintiff\u2019s filing a small-claim complaint to collect fees for sewer services allegedly rendered to defendant. Simply stated, the issues framed by plaintiff\u2019s complaint and defendant\u2019s answer were whether plaintiff had furnished sewer services to defendant, and whether defendant, by reason of an oral agreement with plaintiff\u2019s predecessor in title, was entitled to those services without payment of the fees claimed by plaintiff. The trial court found that plaintiff was entitled to payment of the fees and we agree with the appellate court that the record supports the trial court\u2019s findings.\nIn his counterclaim, in addition to an injunction, defendant sought to recover for damages to his property and for the cost of necessary repairs. His theory of liability in the trial and appellate courts was predicated on plaintiff\u2019s alleged negligence, and in this court he expands his theory and asserts that the maintenance of plaintiff\u2019s sewage pipes constitutes \u201ca public nuisance in fact.\u201d We agree with the appellate court that defendant failed to prove that plaintiff\u2019s negligence was the cause of the alleged damage. Concerning the contention that the maintenance of plaintiff\u2019s sewer pipes constituted a nuisance, it suffices to say that the existence of an actionable nuisance was neither pleaded nor proved.\nPlaintiff contends that defendant failed to sustain the burden of proof that, as alleged in his counterclaim, it had no legal right to maintain its sewer line on his land. Plaintiff does not assert a claim of an easement over defendant\u2019s property as the result of a grant or by prescription, and the maximum right shown by the evidence was a license revocable at will. (Petersen v. Corrubia, 21 Ill.2d 525; Mueller v. Keller, 18 Ill.2d 334; Boland v. Walters, 346 Ill. 184.) We agree with the appellate court that the trial court erred in denying defendant injunctive relief.\nWe conclude that the appellate court correctly decided the issues and entered an appropriate remanding order. Its judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE GOLDENHERSH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "David K. Anderson, of Skokie, for appellant.",
      "John J. Bowman, State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton (James F. Campion, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 46065.\nTHE COUNTY OF DU PAGE, Appellee, v. RICHARD J. KUSSEL, Appellant.\nOpinion filed March 29, 1974.\nRehearing denied May 31, 1974.\nDavid K. Anderson, of Skokie, for appellant.\nJohn J. Bowman, State\u2019s Attorney, of Wheaton (James F. Campion, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0190-01",
  "first_page_order": 200,
  "last_page_order": 202
}