{
  "id": 2472482,
  "name": "Wabash Railroad Company v. A. V. Burch",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wabash Railroad v. Burch",
  "decision_date": "1907-06-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "580",
  "last_page": "580",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "134 Ill. App. 580"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 82,
    "char_count": 777,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "sha256": "718a60d0d7b558b97c85382ce4e8a6ec9ff3277613eade84e918f13a95f4e4d7",
    "simhash": "1:bee74d370909ae56",
    "word_count": 135
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:49:52.486265+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Wabash Railroad Company v. A. V. Burch."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Curiam.\nThe questions involved in this case are practically identical with those discussed in the case of Wabash Railroad Company v. E. D. Smith, for the use of John L. Bennett, ante, p. 574.\nThe holdings announced in that case are decisive of this case, and the judgment in favor of appellee and against appellant in the sum of $54.05 is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hugh Ceba and Hugh W. Housum, for appellant; C. N. Teavous, of counsel.",
      "LeFobgee & Vail, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Wabash Railroad Company v. A. V. Burch.\nThis ease is controlled by the decision in Wabash Railroad Co. v. Smith, ante, p. 574.\nAssumpsit. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Macon county; the Hon. W. C. Johns, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1906.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 1, 1907.\nHugh Ceba and Hugh W. Housum, for appellant; C. N. Teavous, of counsel.\nLeFobgee & Vail, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0580-01",
  "first_page_order": 598,
  "last_page_order": 598
}