{
  "id": 2781916,
  "name": "Marjorie Metes, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Metes v. Uniroyal, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1975-03-31",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-264",
  "first_page": "1057",
  "last_page": "1058",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "26 Ill. App. 3d 1057"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 158,
    "char_count": 1639,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.716,
    "sha256": "941d621476d350f7c69e782bea41db9a1f34ef1f95276b4bc739db5fb58f4465",
    "simhash": "1:99017d36a882b4b1",
    "word_count": 259
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:35:11.694582+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Marjorie Metes, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nEmployee filed suit to recover wages alleged to be due on the grounds that defendant-employer wrongfully classified her as a \u201cclerk\u201d while directing her to perform the duties of a \u201cdispatcher,\u201d thus denying her the higher wages paid to dispatchers. At the close of plaintiff\u2019s evidence, the Circuit Court of Will County directed the jury to return its verdict for the defendant and against the plaintiff, and plaintiff appeals.\nPlaintiffs sole contention on appeal is that the trial court erred in finding that plaintiff\u2019s evidence, viewed most favorably for plaintiff, \u201c\u201c * * does not, nor could not, support a verdict that plaintiff performed the duties of a \u2018dispatcher\u2019 under the defendant\u2019s job classification of \u2018dispatcher\u2019.\u201d The court then concluded that plaintiff was not entitled to the pay of a dispatcher. We have reviewed the record and find that the findings of the trial court were correct, and that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.\nWe determine that no error of law appears, that an opinion in this case would have no precedential value, and that the judgment entered upon allowance of a motion for directed verdict should be affirmed. We therefore affirm in accordance with Supreme Court Rule 23 (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A, par. 23).\nJudgment affirmed.\nALLOY and BARRY JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE STENGEL"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert G. Whitley, Jr., of Codo & Bonds, of Joliet, for appellant.",
      "Lawrence C. Gray, of Thomas, Wallace, Feehan, & Baron, of Joliet, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Marjorie Metes, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Uniroyal, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.\n(No. 74-264;\nThird District\nMarch 31, 1975.\nRobert G. Whitley, Jr., of Codo & Bonds, of Joliet, for appellant.\nLawrence C. Gray, of Thomas, Wallace, Feehan, & Baron, of Joliet, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "1057-01",
  "first_page_order": 1083,
  "last_page_order": 1084
}