{
  "id": 2554620,
  "name": "Loretta Goldman, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Checker Taxi Company, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Goldman v. Checker Taxi Co.",
  "decision_date": "1967-06-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 51,547",
  "first_page": "318",
  "last_page": "321",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "84 Ill. App. 2d 318"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "173 NE2d 525",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ill App2d 374",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5219680
      ],
      "year": 1961,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/29/0374-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "154 NE2d 833",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1958,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "19 Ill App2d 568",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5191437
      ],
      "year": 1958,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "570"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/19/0568-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "161 NE2d 363",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1959,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "22 Ill App2d 502",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5202870
      ],
      "year": 1959,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "509"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/22/0502-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 306,
    "char_count": 4420,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.621,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.566580733845825e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8860810031781776
    },
    "sha256": "753f4d01c5545eafb53ac4c62a762420b4963dae8e5f819b0df1cf1b478807d0",
    "simhash": "1:654eaba33f43f77a",
    "word_count": 738
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:36:35.235024+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Loretta Goldman, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Checker Taxi Company, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MURPHY\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nDefendant appeals from an order which vacated a dismissal order and reinstated plaintiff\u2019s cause of action.\nDefendant contends that \u201cplaintiff has failed to show any cause under Section 72 of the Civil Practice Act to vacate a dismissal order entered seventeen months pri- or to the making of the motion; and that plaintiff\u2019s own negligence, and indifference to and disobedience of the previous orders of the court requiring production of income tax returns for discovery, bars the plaintiff from seeking relief in equity under Section 72 of the Civil Practice Act.\u201d\nThe record shows that plaintiff\u2019s personal injury complaint was filed July 18, 1962. On June 11, 1963, the court sustained defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss \u201cfor failure of plaintiff to authorize tax statements.\u201d The statement of claim was stricken, and the suit dismissed. This order of dismissal was vacated on November 5, 1963, and plaintiff was given \u201cthirty (30) days to sign income tax authorizations.\u201d On February 13, 1964, defendant\u2019s second motion to dismiss, supported by affidavit, was continued to March 5, 1964, \u201cby agreement between the parties hereto.\u201d On March 5, 1964, the court sustained defendant\u2019s motion and ordered \u201cthat this cause be and the same is hereby dismissed out of this court.\u201d On August 6, 1965, plaintiff moved \u201cto reinstate the above entitled matter in accordance with the Affidavit which will be filed on the hearing of the motion.\u201d On December 28, 1965, the attorney for plaintiff filed an affidavit, which stated:\n\u201c1. That this matter was dismissed by this Honorable Court for failure to submit income tax returns of the plaintiff.\n\u201c2. That this office believed that the returns had been submitted to the attorneys for the defendant prior to the hearing on the motion to dismiss and thought the motion had been withdrawn.\n\u201c3. That on a review of all files at the Courthouse, it was discovered that there was a hearing on the motion and this matter had been dismissed.\n\u201c4. That the tax returns are still in our files and available to the defendant\u2019s attorneys.\n\u201c5. That the plaintiff has a good claim and should not be denied her day in Court.\u201d\nOn April 19, 1966, the trial court vacated the order of dismissal entered March 5, 1964, and set the matter for trial on December 8, 1966. A subsequent motion of defendant to vacate the order of April 19, 1966, was denied.\nA review of the contentions and supporting authorities of both sides is unnecessary here. Our determination of the issue is based on what this record reflects.\nA petition to vacate a default order under section 72 must show \u201cdue diligence\u201d in making an available defense. The remedy was not designed to relieve a party of the consequences of his own neglect. (Till v. Kara, 22 Ill App2d 502, 509, 161 NE2d 363 (1959).) Persistent failure to comply with the orders of the court is a proper ground for dismissal (Supreme Court Rule 219(c) (v)), and a trial court has the responsibility to uphold the dignity and authority of the court. (Sager Glove Corp. v. Continental Cas. Co., 19 Ill App2d 568, 570, 154 NE2d 833 (1958).) The petition is addressed to the sound legal discretion of the court, and it is only when there is an abuse of discretion that a reviewing court will interfere. Dann v. Gumbiner, 29 Ill App2d 374,173 NE2d 525 (1961).\nThis record shows two dismissal orders for failure to comply with orders of the trial court, plus a seventeen-month delay before making a routine motion to vacate the second dismissal order. The supporting affidavit does not show diligence in presenting the motion to vacate, nor compliance with the order of court entered on November 5, 1963, to execute tax authorization within thirty days. We conclude this record shows an indifference to court orders and a lack of diligence in promptly moving to vacate the dismissal order of March 5, 1964.\nFor the reasons given, the order of the trial court entered April 19, 1966, vacating the dismissal order of March 5,1964, is reversed.\nReversed.\nBURMAN and ADESKO, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "MR. PRESIDING JUSTICE MURPHY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jesmer & Harris, of Chicago, for appellant.",
      "Milroy R. Blowitz, of Chicago (Leon C. Wexler, of counsel), for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Loretta Goldman, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Checker Taxi Company, Inc., a Foreign Corporation, Defendant-Appellant.\nGen. No. 51,547.\nFirst District, First Division.\nJune 12, 1967.\nRehearing denied July 5,1967.\nJesmer & Harris, of Chicago, for appellant.\nMilroy R. Blowitz, of Chicago (Leon C. Wexler, of counsel), for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0318-01",
  "first_page_order": 324,
  "last_page_order": 327
}