{
  "id": 1598135,
  "name": "Patricia Y. Fannon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Aurora, a Municipal Corporation, and Officers Smithburg and Lawrence, Police Officers of the City of Aurora, Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fannon v. City of Aurora",
  "decision_date": "1969-02-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 68-147",
  "first_page": "408",
  "last_page": "411",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "106 Ill. App. 2d 408"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "196 NE 191",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1935,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 Ill 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2599691
      ],
      "year": 1935,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "332"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/360/0328-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "90 NE 300",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1909,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "242 Ill 501",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5653795
      ],
      "year": 1909,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "507"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/242/0501-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "38 NE2d 519",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1941,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "312 Ill App 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5643043
      ],
      "year": 1941,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "277"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/312/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "230 Ill App 281",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5493628
      ],
      "year": 1923,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "283"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/230/0281-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "245 Ill App 330",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        3371661
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "331"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/245/0330-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 NE 1000",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.",
      "year": 1914,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "261 Ill 362",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4742174
      ],
      "year": 1914,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "364-366"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/261/0362-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "170 NE2d 13",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1960,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ill App2d 481",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5786284
      ],
      "year": 1960,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "488"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/27/0481-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 349,
    "char_count": 4746,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.59,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.2087998760507482e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7762560674386808
    },
    "sha256": "7ae88c5f09188b7cbfbee41ed98f2b87f59b515f8461c06cb8451ae1af3bb3ce",
    "simhash": "1:2b534742b287b4ed",
    "word_count": 804
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:31:30.839474+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "MORAN, P. J. and DAVIS, J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Patricia Y. Fannon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Aurora, a Municipal Corporation, and Officers Smithburg and Lawrence, Police Officers of the City of Aurora, Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE SEIDENFELD\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nPlaintiff appeals from a summary judgment dismissing her suit against the City and two police officers based on alleged negligence and false imprisonment.\nIn the case against the City the sole issue is whether or not plaintiff\u2019s service of notice by certified mail complied with the provisions of Ill Rev Stats 1965, c 85, \u00a7 8-102, concerning notice of injury to a local public entity or any of its employees.\nThe additional argument is made in the case against the officers that, by failing to deny the allegation in plaintiff\u2019s complaint that she had \u201cduly filed\u201d the notice, they had thereby waived the requirement of personal service.\nPlaintiff\u2019s position is that since the defendants did have actual notice of the claim within the time provided, that the purpose of the statute was fulfilled, and under the doctrine of \u201csubstantial compliance,\u201d the statute was satisfied. It is also urged that a literal reading of the statute would require that the plaintiff, herself, serve the notice and that to avoid absurd consequences we should interpret the statute to permit service by an agent, including the post office.\nThese arguments might have some weight if the statute did not clearly provide the form of service of notice, and make the notice a condition precedent to suit. See Ill Rev Stats 1965, c 85, \u00a7\u00a7 8-102 (supra) and 8-103; City of Chicago v. James E. Mulligan Enterprises, 27 Ill App2d 481, 488, 170 NE2d 13 (1960). Service of notice by certified mail does not constitute personal service, nor does it comply with the personal service requirement. Haj v. American Bottle Co., 261 Ill 362, 364-366, 103 NE 1000 (1914); Throgmorton v. Mosak, 245 Ill App 330, 331 (1925); Eastwood v. Road Dist. No. 5, 230 Ill App 281, 283 (1923).\nPrior to 1965 the statute provided that the injured party \u201cshall file\u201d the notice. In 1965 the language was changed to provide that the plaintiff \u201cmust personally serve\u201d the notice. In either event, the sensible reference is to method or character of service of the notice; and the statute does not require that the party personally go to the office to either file the notice under the previous provision or to serve the notice under the present one. Service may be made by an agent, but in view of the interpretation which the cases have placed on \u201cpersonal service,\u201d we cannot conclude that the post office is the agent to make the service.\nUnder the prior statute it was held that the filing of the notice was mandatory and that \u201csubstantial compliance\u201d (actual knowledge by the City) was not sufficient. See McCarthy v. City of Chicago, 312 Ill App 268, 277, 38 NE2d 519 (1941); Ouimette v. City of Chicago, 242 Ill 501, 507, 90 NE 300 (1909); Minnis v. Friend, 360 Ill 328, 332, 196 NE 191 (1935). Under the present statute, the requirement of \u201cpersonal service\u201d can, similarly, not be satisfied by service by mail, despite proof of actual knowledge.\nNor are we persuaded that the defendant Officers waived the requirement of personal service. The admissions made by the denial of the complaint merely were that the plaintiff did not \u201cfile\u201d the notice. The complaint did not allege personal service as required by the statute, and the failure to deny the \u201cfiling\u201d was in no way an admission that service had properly been made.\nWe, therefore, affirm.\nAffirmed.\nMORAN, P. J. and DAVIS, J., concur.\n\u201c8-102. Notice of injury. \u00a7 8-102. Within 6 months from the date that the injury or cause of action, . . . was received or accrued, any person who is about to commence any civil action for damages on account of such injury against a local public entity, or against any of its employees whose act or omission committed while acting in the scope of his employment as such employee caused the injury, must personally serve in the Office of the Secretary or Clerk, as the case may be, for the entity against whom or against whose employee the action is contemplated a written statement, signed by himself, his agent or attorney, giving the name of the person to whom the cause of action has accrued, the name and residence of the person injured, the date and about the hour of the accident, the place or location where the accident occurred, the general nature of the accident and the name and address of the attending physician, if any.\u201d",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE SEIDENFELD"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Konstans and Catella, of St. Charles, for appellant.",
      "O\u2019Brien, Burnell, Puckett & Barnett, and Dale C. Flanders, of Aurora, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Patricia Y. Fannon, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. City of Aurora, a Municipal Corporation, and Officers Smithburg and Lawrence, Police Officers of the City of Aurora, Defendants-Appellees.\nGen. No. 68-147.\nSecond District.\nFebruary 28, 1969.\nRehearing denied March 27, 1969.\nKonstans and Catella, of St. Charles, for appellant.\nO\u2019Brien, Burnell, Puckett & Barnett, and Dale C. Flanders, of Aurora, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0408-01",
  "first_page_order": 414,
  "last_page_order": 417
}