{
  "id": 3603578,
  "name": "HARVEY W. BOEGER et al., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILBERT H. BOEGER, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boeger v. Boeger",
  "decision_date": "1986-09-29",
  "docket_number": "No. 85\u20140313",
  "first_page": "629",
  "last_page": "631",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "147 Ill. App. 3d 629"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "433 N.E.2d 1044",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1046"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "104 Ill. App. 3d 1072",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5476064
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "1074-75"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/104/1072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "453 N.E.2d 820",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "117 Ill. App. 3d 448",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3483104
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "451"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/117/0448-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "478 N.E.2d 324",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "325"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "106 Ill. 2d 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        3138476
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "184"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/106/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "457 N.E.2d 85",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "96"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "119 Ill. App. 3d 713",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3629688
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "728"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/119/0715-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 N.E.2d 520",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "523"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "7 Ill. App. 3d 760",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2667895
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "763"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/7/0760-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "371 N.E.2d 294",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "56 Ill. App. 3d 229",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3413612
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/56/0229-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "418 N.E.2d 56",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "93 Ill. App. 3d 966",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        3135474
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/93/0966-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "443 N.E.2d 1107",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "111 Ill. App. 3d 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5441203
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/111/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "345 N.E.2d 493",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "495"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ill. 2d 128",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5426498
      ],
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "133"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/63/0128-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 395,
    "char_count": 5481,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.754,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.642634314243859e-08,
      "percentile": 0.527795442900339
    },
    "sha256": "b57423a2d3dd5b452b41f5a61ffd7793b1571cc74fd625d43178303337e60278",
    "simhash": "1:23da4846b7e59d0e",
    "word_count": 896
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:34:28.954445+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "HARVEY W. BOEGER et al., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILBERT H. BOEGER, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JUSTICE LINDBERG\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nDefendant, Gilbert Boeger, appeals pro se from the circuit court\u2019s order removing him as co \u2014 trustee of certain trusts. Plaintiff, Harvey W. Boeger, did not file an appellee\u2019s brief. Nonetheless, this court may consider appellant\u2019s contentions on the merits. First Capitol Mortgage Corp. v. Talandis Construction Corp. (1976), 63 Ill. 2d 128, 133, 345 N.E.2d 493, 495.\nThe brief filed by defendant in this court does not conform to the requirements for an appellant\u2019s brief established by Supreme Court Rule 341 (87 Ill. 2d R. 341). It is completely inadequate for a proper review of the trial court\u2019s judgment. Rule 341 sets out specific elements which must appear in every appellant\u2019s brief. These consist of a statement of \u201cpoints and authorities,\u201d a statement of the nature of the case, a statement of facts with references to the record, and an argument section consisting of the appellant\u2019s contentions and reasoning supported by citations to authority. 87 Ill. 2d R. 341.\nIn recent years, the appellate court has not insisted on strict, technical compliance with the rule. In some cases, courts have been willing to consider the merits of the appellant\u2019s contentions where, despite some minor inadequacies in his brief, the basis for his appeal is fairly clear. (See, e.g., People v. Austin (1982), 111 Ill. App. 3d 213, 443 N.E.2d 1107; Wilson v. Continental Body Corp. (1981), 93 Ill. App. 3d 966, 418 N.E.2d 56.) Nonetheless, where the brief is totally inadequate for a proper review of the issues involved, courts have not hesitated to dismiss the appeal. (47th & State Currency Exchange, Inc. v. B. Coleman Corp. (1977), 56 Ill. App. 3d 229, 371 N.E.2d 294; In re Estate of Kunz (1972), 7 Ill. App. 3d 760, 288 N.E.2d 520.) As the court noted in Kunz, \u201c[Reviewing courts are entitled to have the issues clearly defined, to be cited pertinent authorities and are not a depository in which an appellant is to dump the entire matter of pleadings, court action, argument and research as it were, upon the court.\u201d 7 Ill. App. 3d 760, 763, 288 N.E.2d 520, 523.\nThe brief in the present case is clearly inadequate. It contains no summary of points and authorities and no fact statement as such. The section entitled \u201cargument\u201d consists of a rambling, often disjointed recitation of facts, often with no apparent relevance to the present litigation. It contains no indication of what, exactly, are appellant\u2019s objections to the trial court\u2019s ruling and contains no citation of authority. The remainder of the brief consists of photocopies of various documents, many taken from the record in this cause. Their relevance to defendant\u2019s argument is not explained.\nA review of the record reveals that defendant is one of three co \u2014 trustees of two trusts. The principal asset of both is an approximately four-acre tract of farmland in Du Page County. In approximately 1980, defendant\u2019s parents, settlors of the trusts and also beneficiaries thereof, contracted to sell the four-acre tract. A dispute arose as to the validity of the contract, and defendant\u2019s parents did not perform. The prospective buyers filed suit, and eventually a settlement was proposed wherein the sellers would make a cash payment to the buyers and be excused from performing the contract. Defendant, as co \u2014 trustee of the trust in which the land was held, refused to accede to this \u2014 or any other \u2014 proposed settlement. All the beneficiaries of the two trusts then filed the present action seeking to have defendant removed as a trustee, which relief was granted by the trial court in an order dated May 11, 1984. Defendant filed a post-trial motion on May 24. There followed nearly a year of motions, responses to motions and additional discovery. The trial court finally denied defendant\u2019s post-trial motion in an order dated March 12, 1985. This appeal followed.\nAs indicated previously, defendant\u2019s brief contains no basis for determining his specific objections to the trial court\u2019s order. A reviewing court is entitled to have the issues clearly defined with pertinent authority cited. (Bass v. Washington-Kinney Co. (1983), 119 Ill. App. 3d 713, 728, 457 N.E.2d 85, 96.) A reviewing court will not ordinarily search the record for unargued and unbriefed reasons to reverse a lower court\u2019s decision; but for jurisdictional reasons such a search is appropriate. (Parks v. McWhorter (1985), 106 Ill. 2d 181, 184, 478 N.E.2d 324, 325.) A reviewing court will not apply a more lenient procedural standard to pro se litigants than is generally allowed attorneys. (Harvey v. Carponelli (1983), 117 Ill. App. 3d 448, 451, 453 N.E.2d 820.) Here, as in Harvey, appellant\u2019s brief is ambiguous and flagrantly deficient in many respects and is in violation of the supreme court rules (87 Ill. 2d R. 341). \u201c[Wjhere a brief submitted by a defendant on appeal fails to articulate an organized and cohesive legal argument for the court\u2019s consideration and fails to comply with Supreme Court Rule 341 *** the appeal must be dismissed.\u201d (Bank of Ravenswood v. Maiorella (1982), 104 Ill. App. 3d 1072, 1074-75, 433 N.E.2d 1044, 1046.) It follows that this appeal must also be dismissed.\nDismissed.\nREINHARD and HOPE, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JUSTICE LINDBERG"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gilbert H. Boeger, of Bellwood, for appellant, pro se.",
      "No brief filed for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HARVEY W. BOEGER et al., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. GILBERT H. BOEGER, Defendant-Appellant.\nSecond District\nNo. 85\u20140313\nOpinion filed September 29, 1986.\nGilbert H. Boeger, of Bellwood, for appellant, pro se.\nNo brief filed for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0629-01",
  "first_page_order": 651,
  "last_page_order": 653
}