{
  "id": 2497818,
  "name": "James D. Peterson et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tazewell County et al., Defendants-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peterson v. Tazewell County",
  "decision_date": "1975-06-12",
  "docket_number": "No. 74-237",
  "first_page": "915",
  "last_page": "916",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ill. App. 3d 915"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "208 N.E.2d 419",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "60 Ill.App.2d 99",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2605167
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/60/0099-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "211 N.E.2d 364",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "33 Ill.2d 297",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2883974
      ],
      "year": 1965,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-2d/33/0297-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "299 N.E.2d 350",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1973,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "351"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "12 Ill.App.3d 1012",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2850839
      ],
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/12/1012-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 N.E.2d 184",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "3 Ill.App.3d 817",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        2835759
      ],
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/3/0817-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "275 N.E.2d 468",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ill.App.3d 780",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5312842
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/1/0780-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 N.E.2d 409",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "1 Ill.App.3d 2",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 3d",
      "case_ids": [
        5314039
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-3d/1/0002-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 295,
    "char_count": 3431,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.748,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5616096759263232e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6770354178950201
    },
    "sha256": "970f62c8fdfde1f5672a8cf1a1262dffae1ee9bf5b0d6d5e0c6843c4afbabf57",
    "simhash": "1:1f5190d31f57ff66",
    "word_count": 565
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:57.823802+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James D. Peterson et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tazewell County et al., Defendants-Appellees."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE BARRY\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an action by plaintiffs for themselves and all other taxpayers in Tazewell County to enjoin defendants from transferring sums from the county\u2019s general fund to the county nursing home account to cover an operating deficit. The second amended complaint alleges no adequate remedy at law and that the disbursement, if permitted, would wrongfully divert public moneys to private use in violation of article I, section 2, and of article VIII, sections 1(a) and (b), of the 1970 Constitution, since the operating deficit derives from the county board\u2019s failure to charge private, paying patients tire full cost of their care as required by law (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 34, pars. 303 (7), 5368, 5369, and 5373). On defendants\u2019 motion, the foregoing pleading was dismissed for failure to state a cause of action and for other defects appearing on the face. The order of dismissal contains a finding that \u201cthere is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal * * Accordingly, plaintiffs have filed this appeal which we dismiss for want of jurisdiction.\nNotwithstanding that there are multiple parties in this litigation, only a single claim is involved and no final, appealable order has been entered on that single claim as to any party. An order dismissing the second amended complaint is not a final judgment and is not appealable. (Rutledge v. Niewoehner, 1 Ill.App.3d 2, 272 N.E.2d 409 (5th Dist. 1971).) To be a final appealable order, the dismissal must have been entered with prejudice (Brainerd v. First Lake County National Bank, 1 Ill.App.3d 780, 275 N.E.2d 468 (2d Dist. 1971)), so as to finally terminate litigation on the claim, if we affirm. (Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Le Pes, 3 Ill.App.3d 817, 279 N.E.2d 184 (5th Dist. 1972); see also Joliet Federal Savings & Loan Ass\u2019n v. O\u2019Hare International Bank, 12 Ill.App.3d 1012, 299 N.E.2d 350, 351 (3d Dist. 1973).) Supreme Court Rule 304(a) (Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 110A) recites:\n\u201cIf multiple parties or multiple claims for relief are involved in an action, an appeal may be taken from a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the parties or claims only if the trial court has made an express written finding that there is no just reason for delaying enforcement or appeal.\u201d (Emphasis added.)\nThe rule does not dispense with the necessity of a final order at least as between some of the parties or as between some or all of them on fewer than all the claims. Absent compliance with that requirement here, the finding by the circuit court \u201cthat no just reason exists for delaying enforcement or appeal,\u201d implying as it does, a reservation of jurisdiction in the circuit court for some purpose, does not confer appellate jurisdiction (Davis v. Childers, 33 Ill.2d 297, 211 N.E.2d 364 (1965); Aetna Casualty & Surety Company v. Le Pres), and we are, therefore, required to dismiss. (Impey v. City of Wheaton, 60 Ill.App.2d 99, 208 N.E.2d 419 (2d Dist. 1965).)\nAppeal dismissed.\nSTOUDER and ALLOY, JJ., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE BARRY"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moehle, Moehle, Reardon & Associates, of Washington (G. Joseph Weller, of counsel), for appellants.",
      "C. Brett Bode, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (Thomas Letter, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James D. Peterson et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Tazewell County et al., Defendants-Appellees.\n(No. 74-237;\nThird District\nJune 12, 1975.\nRehearing denied July 8, 1975.\nMoehle, Moehle, Reardon & Associates, of Washington (G. Joseph Weller, of counsel), for appellants.\nC. Brett Bode, State\u2019s Attorney, of Pekin (Thomas Letter, Assistant State\u2019s Attorney, of counsel), for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0915-01",
  "first_page_order": 939,
  "last_page_order": 940
}