{
  "id": 2839792,
  "name": "Phillip A. Smith et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George Muster, Defendant-Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Muster",
  "decision_date": "1972-01-11",
  "docket_number": "No. 11431",
  "first_page": "358",
  "last_page": "359",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "3 Ill. App. 3d 358"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "212 N.E.2d 106",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "65 Ill.App.2d 175",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        5293128
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/65/0175-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 N.E.2d 767",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "N.E.2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "74 Ill.App.2d 224",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App. 2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2581383
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app-2d/74/0224-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": 182,
    "char_count": 2222,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.754,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08498159545209007
    },
    "sha256": "c21c04c1e3f801257997441a0509e439b53bc948f31b5f43b7ee739096b0179b",
    "simhash": "1:45d9ce64242f26f4",
    "word_count": 378
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:53:03.474127+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Phillip A. Smith et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George Muster, Defendant-Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. JUSTICE VERTICCHIO\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment entered on behalf of the plaintiffs and against the defendant in the amount of $146.54 in the circuit court of Vermilion County. The suit arose out of an automobile accident at or near the intersection of Franklin Street and Voorhees Street in Danville, Illinois, on July 24, 1970.\nThe plaintiffs, pro se, filed the suit against the defendant. Defendant appeals from the judgment which was entered on behalf of the plaintiffs and against the defendant after a bench trial.\nThe issues on this appeal are directed to the sufficiency of the evidence and the admissibility of certain evidence relating to damages.\nUnfortunately, the appellees have not filed a brief in this court.\nIn People v. Spinelli, 83 Ill.App.2d 391, 227 N.E.2d 779, the court stated that the absence of such a brief leaves the court in the dual role of advocate and judge.\nAs a result of the appellees\u2019 failure to file a brief, this court does not have the benefit of their point of view concerning the sufficiency of the evidence and admissibility of the evidence. There is nothing to give support to the judgment of the trial court.\nSupreme Court Rule 341, Ill. Rev. Stat. 1969, ch. 110 \u2014 A, ch. 341, provides for the filing of an appellees\u2019 brief. While the court is not mandated to dismiss an appeal for failure to file a brief, the failure to comply with the rule is unfair both to this court and to the trial court. In certain cases this court may determine that justice requires a decision on the merits. This is within the sound discretion of the court. In this case a review of the nature of the issues establishes that the judgment should be reversed pro forma. See Timmerman v. Wilson, 74 Ill.App.2d 224, 219 N.E.2d 767; and Morella v. Melrose Park Cab. Co., 65 Ill.App.2d 175, 212 N.E.2d 106.\nTherefore, the judgment of the circuit court of Vermilion County is reversed.\nJudgment reversed.\nSMITH, P. J., and CRAVEN, J., concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. JUSTICE VERTICCHIO"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Phillips, Phebus & Tummelson, of Urbana, (George G. Bryan, of counsel, ) for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Phillip A. Smith et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. George Muster, Defendant-Appellant.\n(No. 11431;\nFourth District\nJanuary 11, 1972.\nPhillips, Phebus & Tummelson, of Urbana, (George G. Bryan, of counsel, ) for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0358-01",
  "first_page_order": 378,
  "last_page_order": 379
}