{
  "id": 5376564,
  "name": "Margie Marks, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The City of Johnston City, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Marks v. City of Johnston City",
  "decision_date": "1974-08-05",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-1",
  "first_page": "1089",
  "last_page": "1091",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "21 Ill. App. 3d 1089"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "263 N.E.2d 630",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "130 Ill.App.2d 491",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2827524
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/130/0491-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "44 Ill.App.2d 304",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5242373
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/44/0304-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 Ill. 311",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5155466
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/319/0311-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 229,
    "char_count": 2693,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.734,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1585698625672771
    },
    "sha256": "7a7846bd5926812684a5290608afebe8ed2d971279b0c5fe400607e71af0c02f",
    "simhash": "1:08eb504e980594e0",
    "word_count": 449
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:11:03.342046+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Margie Marks, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The City of Johnston City, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nPlaintiff appeals from an order .granting defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss her complaint for personal injuries.\nOn October 2, 1967, through her then attorney, plaintiff filed a notice with the cleric of the City of Johnston City pursuant to section 8 \u2014 102 of the Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. Stat. 1965, ch. 85, par. 8 \u2014 102). On March 26, 1969, she filed a complaint seeking damages for injuries she had incurred on April 4, 1967, because of slipping on a defective entranceway to the city clerk\u2019s office. Thus her complaint was filed almost 2 years after her claimed injury. The Local Governmental and Governmental Employees Tort Immunity Act (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 85, par. 8 \u2014 101) at the time provided that \u201cno civil action can be commenced in any court against a local entity for any injury unless it is commenced within one year from the date that the injury was received or the cause of action accrued.\u201d The appellee filed a motion asking that the suit be dismissed for failure to file within the time specified by law. Appellant responded to this motion by asserting that the appellee was estopped or had waived the 1-year statutory limitation by the payment of certain medical bills, the result of which was to induce the appellant to forgo compliance with the limitation statute. The trial court granted the appellee\u2019s motion and dismissed the complaint.\nPlaintiff urges that the trial court was in error in dismissing the suit on the pleadings because the claimed conduct of the defendant estopped it from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense to her cause of action.\nThe conduct of a party against whom a waiver of the statute of limitations is claimed must be such as to cause him to change his position by lulling him into a false sense of security thereby causing him to delay or waive his rights. (Dickirson v. Pacific Mutual Life Insurance Co., 319 Ill. 311; Kinsey v. Thompson, 44 Ill.App.2d 304; Flagler v. Wessman, 130 Ill.App.2d 491, 263 N.E.2d 630.) Here it is apparent that the plaintiff was represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings. There is no aHegation that plaintiff was lulled into a false feeling that her case would be settled regardless of the period of limitation.\nFor the foregoing reasons the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nEBERSPACHER and CREES, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. PRESIDING JUSTICE GEORGE J. MORAN"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mitchell and Armstrong, Ltd., of Marion, for appellant.",
      "James B. Bleyer, of Marion, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Margie Marks, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The City of Johnston City, Defendant-Appellee.\n(No. 74-1;\nFifth District\nAugust 5, 1974.\nMitchell and Armstrong, Ltd., of Marion, for appellant.\nJames B. Bleyer, of Marion, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1089-02",
  "first_page_order": 1113,
  "last_page_order": 1115
}