{
  "id": 2682912,
  "name": "John Dorbin, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yellow Cab Company et al. Defendants-Appellants",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dorbin v. Yellow Cab Co.",
  "decision_date": "1973-09-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 57295",
  "first_page": "586",
  "last_page": "588",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 Ill. App. 3d 586"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "183 N.E.2d 559",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill.App.2d 55",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5259986
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/36/0055-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "190 N.E.2d 731",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "28 Ill.2d 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5363115
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/28/0199-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "273 N.E.2d 622",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ill.App.3d 113",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5315438
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/1/0113-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 270,
    "char_count": 4468,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.754,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.271767826396032e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43315652765856233
    },
    "sha256": "57568e8a5731701c317f6d8f63c1f1fc3218269de9dcc1788a5c5987794ce64c",
    "simhash": "1:0bd518e1fe6e8d2e",
    "word_count": 730
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:15:06.021527+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John Dorbin, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yellow Cab Company et al Defendants-Appellants."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STAMOS\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant appeals from a judgment of $1500 entered in favor of plaintiff, contending that the trial- court erred in vacating an order dismissing the suit.\nOn November 18, 1966, plaintiff filed a complaint alleging negligence on the part of defendant. On December 5, 1966, defendant filed an answer to the complaint and interrogatories to be answered by plaintiff. On March 28, 1967, in response to a motion of defendant, the trial court entered an order giving plaintiff 30 days in which to file answers to the interrogatories. On June 15, 1967, the complaint was ordered stricken because of plaintiff\u2019s failure to appear for a deposition. On June 30, 1967, the June 15 order was vacated on motion of plaintiff. On December 29, 1969, on motion of defendant, the court entered an order striking the complaint and dismissing the suit because of plaintiff\u2019s failure to answer interrogatories. On January 27, 1970, on motion of plaintiff, the trial court vacated the December 29 order, finding that service of the notice of defendant\u2019s motion to strike the complaint was \u201cquestionable\u201d. Defendant sought to appeal the order vacating the dismissal, but the appeal was dismissed on the ground that the order was not final and appealable. (Dorbin v. Yellow Cab Co., 1 Ill.App.3d 113, 273 N.E.2d 622.) The case was returned to the trial court and placed on the trial calendar. Defendant concedes that it had obtained plaintiff\u2019s deposition and that plaintiff answered the interrogatories in question before trial of the cause. On October 20, 1971, judgment was entered on a jury verdict in favor of plaintiff in the amount of $1500.\nDefendant contends that the trial court erred in vacating the December 29 order whereby plaintiff\u2019s complaint was stricken and the suit dismissed. Defendant argues that the trial court abused its discretion in vacating the order of dismissal because the record does not reflect any valid reason for sustaining plaintiffs motion to vacate the order.\nThe January 27, 1970, order provides in part:\n\u201cThis cause coming before the Court on Motion of the Plaintiff to vacate the Order of December 29, 1969, and all parties being present pursuant to proper Notice and the Court hearing the arguments of counsel.\nIT IS ORDERED:\n1. That the Order entered herein on December 29, 1970, [sic] striking the Complaint for failure to Answer Interrogatories and dismissing this cause is hereby vacated and the fee for reinstating this matter is hereby waived due to the Court\u2019s finding that the proper service of Notice of said Motion was questionable.\u201d\nIt has been held that, where an order entered by a trial court recites that the court is fully advised in the premises, it will be presumed that the court received adequate information to support the decision rendered. (Skaggs v. Junis, 28 Ill.2d 199, 190 N.E.2d 731; Smith v. Smith, 36 Ill.App.2d 55, 183 N.E.2d 559.) We think that the instant case presents an analogous situation. The trial court found that service of notice of defendant\u2019s motion to strike the complaint was \u201cquestionable\u201d and vacated the order dismissing the action. Inasmuch as the record does not reflect the basis for this finding, we must presume that the information presented to the trial court at the hearing on the motion to vacate was sufficient to support the order. Where it is alleged that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of the court, the burden of preserving such evidence rests with the party who appeals from the order. (Skaggs v. Junis, supra.) Defendant has failed to preserve the evidence that it claims was insufficient to support the finding of the trial court.\nWe are aware that defendant\u2019s basic grievance is the failure of plaintiff to abide by the court\u2019s orders to answer the interrogatories. We do not condone such conduct. However, defendant has not established any prejudice to its defense arising out of plaintiffs failure to answer the interrogatories at a point of time earlier in the course of the proceedings.\nThe judgment is therefore affirmed.\nAffirmed.\nLEIGHTON and HAYES, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE STAMOS"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Jerome Feldman and Robert Cleveland, both of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "Jesmer and Harris, of Chicago, (Robert Jesmer, Charles E. Tannen, and Ronald Jay Gold, of counsel,) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John Dorbin, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Yellow Cab Company et al Defendants-Appellants.\nNo. 57295\nFirst District (2nd Division)\nSeptember 18, 1973.\nJerome Feldman and Robert Cleveland, both of Chicago, for appellants.\nJesmer and Harris, of Chicago, (Robert Jesmer, Charles E. Tannen, and Ronald Jay Gold, of counsel,) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0586-01",
  "first_page_order": 608,
  "last_page_order": 610
}