{
  "id": 5256193,
  "name": "Violet Stockman, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo G. Stockman, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stockman v. Stockman",
  "decision_date": "1962-11-28",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 62-O-1",
  "first_page": "186",
  "last_page": "190",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "38 Ill. App. 2d 186"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "17 NE2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 Ill 419",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2564252
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/369/0419-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 NE2d 231",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ill App2d 325",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5789066
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/30/0325-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "175 NE2d 659",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "31 Ill App2d 72",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5228954
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/31/0072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "166 NE2d 13",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill2d 164",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2742687
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/19/0164-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "171 NE2d 779",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "21 Ill2d 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2730009
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/21/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 NE2d 50",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "396 Ill 176",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2466777
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/396/0176-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 NE2d 549",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ill App2d 538",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5131528
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/4/0538-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 NE2d 743",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "8 Ill App2d 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5151256,
        5149224
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/8/0168-02",
        "/ill-app-2d/8/0168-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "124 NE2d 1",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ill App2d 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5132719
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/4/0205-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 402,
    "char_count": 5321,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3413078441442377e-07,
      "percentile": 0.631316343153597
    },
    "sha256": "7a310365e8c0cc95fc771bc18a38f29a634676694d023b7cd603c00bc3c517fe",
    "simhash": "1:9c757b86d9240f6f",
    "word_count": 938
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:14.630720+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "SCHEINEMAN, P. J. and CULBERTSON J., concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Violet Stockman, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo G. Stockman, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "HOFFMAN, JUSTICE.\nDefendant Leo G-. Stockman appeals from a decree of divorce in favor of his wife entered by the City Court of East St. Louis. The ground alleged was extreme and repeated cruelty. The trial court found that the defendant was guilty of cruelty within the meaning of the Divorce Act. It is claimed by the husband that the conduct complained of is insufficient to support the charges made. He argues that the evidence fails to show \u201csuch grave cruelty that it endangered the life and subjected the plaintiff to great bodily harm.\u201d He relies principally on the case of Coolidge v. Coolidge, 4 Ill App2d 205, 124 NE2d 1 and DeCarlo v. DeCarlo, 8 Ill App2d 168, 129 NE2d 743.\nFurther, defendant reminds the Court, that it has been said that in divorce eases, the State occupies the position of a third party and is interested in maintaining the integrity and permanency of the marriage relation as divorce \u201caffects the home life and domestic relations of the. people, the public morals, the prevailing system of social order and the welfare of every citizen.\u201d Nusser v. Nusser, 4 Ill App2d 538, 124 NE2d 549; Ollman v. Ollman, 396 Ill 176, 71 NE2d 50.\nIn answer, plaintiff wife contends that cruelty under the Divorce Act has been stated by our Supreme Court to be an act of physical violence against a spouse resulting in pain and bodily harm. She cites the cases for this: Tuyls v. Tuyls, 21 Ill2d 192, 171 NE2d 779, Curran v. Curran, 19 Ill2d 164, 166 NE2d 13; Collinet v. Collinet, 31 Ill App2d 72, 175 NE2d 659; Coons v. Coons, 30 Ill App2d 325, 174 NE2d 231; Wesselhoeft v. Wesselhoeft, 369 Ill 419, 17 NE2d 56. She argues that the proofs will support such cruelty.\nThese cases have all been examined and are before this Court in examining the testimony produced at the hearing.\nThe parties were married December 29, 1942 and 3 children were born of the marriage, one of whom died. At the time of the trial, one child was approaching 6 years of age and one was nearly 4 years of age. The wife had a 19 year old son by a previous marriage. In February.of 1959 the wife left and went to Arizona to live. The had separated on several previous occasions, once for a 3 month period.\nThe two acts of cruelty charged were based on the husband\u2019s conduct of January 15 and 27, 1959. On the first occasion the plaintiff testified that \u201che hit me on the shoulder and on the back, with his fist and bruised me.\u201d \u201cOn January 27, 1959\u201d, she said, \u201che hit me across the mouth and bruised me through my knee cap and up to my hip. My mouth was bruised on the outside and was cut on the inside.\u201d No one witnessed these 2 affairs. However, a witness for plaintiff testified that 2 days after January 15, 1959, she saw bruises on plaintiff\u2019s neck and left shoulder. Another witness saw the bruises and saw plaintiff limping. Plaintiff\u2019s son testified that he knew his mother had trouble with her leg after January 27, 1959, the date of the 2d alleged act of cruelty.\nDefendant husband, on his own behalf, categorically denied striking his wife on January 15 and on January 27, as claimed, but gave no explanation or version of anything that happened on either of these occasions.\nThere is no way to tell how severe an act of physical violence actually is from reading a printed page in a brief. Just how severe the cruelty was in the authorities cited is also hard to determine. While every act of physical contact is not an act of cruelty within the statute, when it produces pain and bodily harm it will support a decree for divorce. Bruises, cuts, limping, and the like are not usually the result of slight acts of cruelty. While they are not alone the test, they may aid a trial judge to find that the acts of violence were acts of cruelty within the statute. The trial judge should also consider such other things as the physical condition of the parties, the provocation, the anger displayed and the like. Curran v. Curran, 19 Ill2d 164, 166 NE2d 13.\nActs of violence vary from case to case. \u201cEach case must be considered upon all of its facts, including the conduct of the parties at the time of the occurrences, their physical and mental condition, the provocation, if any, and any other circumstances pertaining to the acts at the time of their commission.\u201d Curran v. Curran, supra.\nIn each ease, as in this case, the trial judge has a better opportunity to see and hear the parties and to observe their witnesses than does the reviewing court. As stated in the Curran case, \u201cthe issues depend largely on matters of credibility.\u201d Tbns, tbe decision of the chancellor should not be disturbed unless it is manifestly against the weight of the evidence.\nWe have carefully reviewed the testimony of the witnesses as presented both in the abstract and additional abstract filed herein. We believe that the findings of the chancellor are not against the manifest weight of all the evidence and his findings will not be disturbed.\nThe decree appealed from is affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nSCHEINEMAN, P. J. and CULBERTSON J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "HOFFMAN, JUSTICE."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Meyer & Meyer, of Belleville, for appellant.",
      "McRoberts and Hoban, of East St. Louis (Royce B. Sheppard, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Violet Stockman, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Leo G. Stockman, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 62-O-1.\nFourth District.\nNovember 28, 1962.\nRehearing denied December 26, 1962.\nMeyer & Meyer, of Belleville, for appellant.\nMcRoberts and Hoban, of East St. Louis (Royce B. Sheppard, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0186-01",
  "first_page_order": 196,
  "last_page_order": 200
}