{
  "id": 5379416,
  "name": "The City of Danville, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Evelyn O. Reffett, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Danville v. Reffett",
  "decision_date": "1974-06-27",
  "docket_number": "No. 12561",
  "first_page": "41",
  "last_page": "42",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 Ill. App. 3d 41"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "266 N.E.2d 123",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Ill.App.2d 908",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2825743
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/130/0908-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "302 N.E.2d 429",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "14 Ill.App.3d 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2688108
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/14/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 N.E.2d 779",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "83 Ill.App.2d 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2556690,
        2555948
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/83/0391-02",
        "/ill-app-2d/83/0391-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 216,
    "char_count": 2457,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.702,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1585932230025766
    },
    "sha256": "41a4218b8e986149a566faeb1faa53d5eee10c56868dade401d42a8d23715aa2",
    "simhash": "1:1bef5fb7341d6622",
    "word_count": 420
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:03.342046+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The City of Danville, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Evelyn O. Reffett, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE CLYDESDALE\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal by Evelyn O. Reffett, defendant, who was found guilty by the court of restricting and obstructing a police officer in violation of a city ordinance of the City of Danville. The court assessed a fine against the defendant in the sum of $10 and costs in the sum of $5.\nPrior to trial, defendant filed an application to sue or defend as a poor person and requested the appointment of counsel. Both requests were denied by the court without hearing.\nOn appeal, the defendant raised the following issues: (1) Should an indigent defendant, as a matter of right, be advised of the right to a jury trial in a municipal ordinance violation case; (2) should an indigent have a right to the appointment of counsel in a municipal ordinance violation case; and (3) does the appropriation of bond money to satisfy a fine and costs amount to an unconstitutional taking of property where defendant claims the bond money was welfare money received by her for aid to her dependent children?\nThe City did not file a responsive brief on appeal and the only oral argument before this court was by the appellant-defendant.\nAlthough substantial issues have been raised by the defendant, we do not propose to serve in the dual role of advocate and judge. This is a position termed \u201cabhorrent\u201d by the court in People v. Spinelli, 83 Ill.App.2d 391, 227 N.E.2d 779.\nThe City\u2019s failure to file a brief leaves the judgment of the trial court without the support of brief and argument to which it is justly entitled. Since the City has abandoned its case on appeal, we see no reason to go into the merits. We have decided to reverse the judgment pro forma. Spinelli; People ex rel. Pullman Bank & Trust Co. v. Fitzgerald, 14 Ill.App.3d 247, 302 N.E.2d 429; Shinn v. County Board of School Trustees, 130 Ill.App.2d 908, 266 N.E.2d 123.\nThe judgment of the circuit court of Vermifion County is reversed and the clerk of the circuit court is directed to return the sum of $15 to the appeHant.\nReversed and remanded with directions.\nTRAPP, P. J., and SIMKINS, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE CLYDESDALE"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Whitney D. Hardey, of Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc., of Danville (Daniel K. Mumme, Senior Law Student, of counsel), for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The City of Danville, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Evelyn O. Reffett, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 12561;\nFourth District\nJune 27, 1974.\nRehearing denied August 21, 1974.\nWhitney D. Hardey, of Land of Lincoln Legal Assistance Foundation, Inc., of Danville (Daniel K. Mumme, Senior Law Student, of counsel), for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0041-01",
  "first_page_order": 65,
  "last_page_order": 66
}