{
  "id": 2827233,
  "name": "City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Earle, Jr., Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Earle",
  "decision_date": "1970-10-30",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 55,141",
  "first_page": "455",
  "last_page": "456",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "130 Ill. App. 2d 455"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "244 NE2d 327",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill App2d 356",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1601112
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "358-359"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/104/0356-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "173 NE2d 851",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill App2d 222",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5788741
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "227-228"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/30/0222-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 222,
    "char_count": 2597,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.6,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41213580405652994
    },
    "sha256": "144570048711c26f4bd05a02e439d9153abee6dd2135e7de33b529f3fd0377a1",
    "simhash": "1:a5d389ddd426b39d",
    "word_count": 443
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:36:32.959960+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Earle, Jr., Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe City has moved to dismiss defendant\u2019s appeal on the jurisdictional ground that the notice of appeal was not filed in apt time.\nOn December 19, 1969, judgment was entered finding defendant guilty of violating the disorderly conduct ordinance of the City and imposing a fine. Municipal Code of Chicago, section 193-1 (a). The record is not clear as to the date of making or filing motions in arrest of judgment and for new trial, or their continuance if they were properly presented within 30 days of judgment. Giving defendant the benefit of the doubt in regard to the timely filing of these motions, it does appear that they were denied by an order entered on February 2, 1970.\nSupreme Court Rule 303(a) requires the filing of a notice of appeal within 30 days after disposition of post-trial motions, and Rule 301 provides that such filing is essential to jurisdiction in the reviewing court. Ill Rev Stats 1969, c 110A, \u00a7\u00a7 303(a), 301. Thus, defendant\u2019s notice of appeal, to accomplish its function in this case, must have been filed by March 4, 1970. It was not. It was filed on March 26, 1970, and, lacking jurisdiction to proceed, this court would find it necessary to dismiss the appeal on its own motion had not the City done so. See, for example, Pruitt v. Motor Cargo, Inc., 30 Ill App2d 222, 227-228, 173 NE2d 851, and cases there cited.\nDefendant opposes dismissal, contending that a stay of mittimus which had been ordered until March 25, 1970, had the effect of extending the time for filing a notice of appeal in the same way as a motion for new trial. We have been directed to no authority for this proposition, nor have we been able to find any. Rule 303(a), cited above, states that the 30-day period for filing starts with the entry of judgment or disposition of \u201ca timely motion directed against the judgment.\u201d A motion for stay of mittimus does not have the character of being \u201cdirected against the judgment.\u201d See Tomaska v. Barone, 104 Ill App2d 356, 358-359, 244 NE2d 327.\nThe appeal is dsmissed.\nDismissed.\nSTAMOS, P. J. and DRUCKER, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Victor M. Earle, III, of New York, New York (David Goldberger, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "Richard L. Curry, Corporation Counsel of City of Chicago (Marvin E. Aspen and Richard F. Friedman, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago, a Municipal Corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Peter Earle, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 55,141.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nOctober 30, 1970.\nRehearing denied November 24, 1970.\nVictor M. Earle, III, of New York, New York (David Goldberger, of Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.\nRichard L. Curry, Corporation Counsel of City of Chicago (Marvin E. Aspen and Richard F. Friedman, Assistant Corporation Counsel, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0455-01",
  "first_page_order": 461,
  "last_page_order": 462
}