{
  "id": 2688864,
  "name": "Irma J. K. Brown et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Marcor, Inc. et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Marcor, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1973-09-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 56798",
  "first_page": "855",
  "last_page": "856",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "14 Ill. App. 3d 855"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill.App.3d 838",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2682125
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/14/0838-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 171,
    "char_count": 1819,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.786,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08351046721256722
    },
    "sha256": "fe3c9ff78dcbaee7e57f75ee267b97d93cb1f957047cb5579b21fc75cc04e42c",
    "simhash": "1:6b82b6b5dd5ed564",
    "word_count": 282
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:15:06.021527+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Irma J. K. Brown et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Marcor, Inc. et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE SULLIVAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiffs here are retail credit purchasers who seek to recover for themselves, and for all other persons similarly situated, all finance charges collected by defendants on their revolving charge accounts through use of the previous-balance method of computation. The trial court dismissed their amended complaint on the ground that it failed to allege facts sufficient to state a cause of action.\nOn appeal, the sole question presented is whether the previous balance method of computing finance charges is permissible under the Retail Installment Sales Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 121%, par. 528).\nThe instant case was argued orally at the same time as Johnson v. Sears Roebuck & Co., 14 Ill.App.3d 838, wherein Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc., was also a defendant. Contemporaneously with the filing of this opinion, we have filed an opinion in Johnson holding that the defendants\u2019 previous-balance plan is a method of computing finance charges on \u201call amounts unpaid thereunder from month to month\u201d within the meaning of sec. 528 of ch. 121% and was permissible thereunder.\nThe previous-balance method complained of by plaintiffs here is the same as that complained of by the plaintiffs in Johnson. In view thereof, we conclude that the trial court was correct in granting the motion to dismiss the amended complaint of plaintiffs here, and its judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nENGLISH and LORENZ, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE SULLIVAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Pressman & Hartunian, of Chicago, for appellants.",
      "Hopkins, Sutter, Owen, Mulroy & Davis, of Chicago, (Thomas R. Mulroy, John L. Conlon, and Richard Bromley, of counsel,) for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Irma J. K. Brown et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Marcor, Inc. et al., Defendants-Appellees.\nNo. 56798\nFirst District (5th Division)\nSeptember 28, 1973.\nPressman & Hartunian, of Chicago, for appellants.\nHopkins, Sutter, Owen, Mulroy & Davis, of Chicago, (Thomas R. Mulroy, John L. Conlon, and Richard Bromley, of counsel,) for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0855-01",
  "first_page_order": 877,
  "last_page_order": 878
}