{
  "id": 2585807,
  "name": "Cornelius Roberson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Leak, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Roberson v. Leak",
  "decision_date": "1966-06-10",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 51,359",
  "first_page": "11",
  "last_page": "12",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 Ill. App. 2d 11"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "218 NE2d 893",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "71 Ill App2d 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2587561
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/71/0420-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 1547,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.597,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.172805962925901e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8640326134844155
    },
    "sha256": "a1123e2f0645e9a432ddae4f561aff1a5f454299ecb77e74f0f298eb28cefd06",
    "simhash": "1:d1bfc4a5b4a79dd7",
    "word_count": 251
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:13:54.687599+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cornelius Roberson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Leak, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nJudgment was entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff for $3,500. Defendant seeks review of that judgment.\nPlaintiff has moved to dismiss this appeal because:\n(1) Defendant filed no post-trial motion and the time for filing such a motion has expired.\n(2) Section 68.1(2) of the Civil Practice Act provides that relief desired after trial must be by post-trial motion containing \u201cthe points relied upon, particularly specifying the grounds in support thereof,\u201d and an appellant may not urge in the reviewing court any point not thus particularly specified in a post-trial motion. Ill Rev Stats (1965), c 110, \u00a7 68.1(2).\n(3) It appears from defendant\u2019s Notice of Appeal that the only review sought is of error alleged to have occurred during the course of the trial.\n(4) Therefore, nothing has been preserved which could properly constitute a basis for review by this court.\nWe believe the point raised by plaintiff\u2019s motion is valid, but consider that the appropriate action for this court to take, under the circumstances, is to affirm the judgment of the trial court, rather than to dismiss the appeal. Johnson Ford Co., Inc. v. Lewan, 71 Ill App2d 420, 218 NE2d 893.\nThe judgment is therefore affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nDRUCKER, P. J. and McCORMICK, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. JUSTICE ENGLISH"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ernest A. Greene, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Block & Levy, of Chicago, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cornelius Roberson, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Leak, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 51,359.\nFirst District, Fourth Division.\nJune 10, 1966.\nErnest A. Greene, of Chicago, for appellant.\nBlock & Levy, of Chicago, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0011-01",
  "first_page_order": 21,
  "last_page_order": 22
}