{
  "id": 5321478,
  "name": "Joseph F. Ryan, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ryan v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1911-01-03",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 15,437",
  "first_page": "356",
  "last_page": "357",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "159 Ill. App. 356"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 166,
    "char_count": 1775,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "sha256": "a531b263d5d0754521cc0ea14d91ccc28851852e9418a9b46e73c9f272f6ad69",
    "simhash": "1:9ecc6aae7863aa49",
    "word_count": 292
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:33:35.030835+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joseph F. Ryan, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe appellee, plaintiff, obtained judgment against appellant, defendant, in the Circuit Court for personal injuries.\nThe appellee was injured in attempting to board the front platform of appellant\u2019s car at or near Archer avenue and Canal street. Questions of fact, such as the sobriety of the appellee, giving a signal to stop, the place the car stopped, the usual place of stopping, whether the car was moving or not at the time appellee attempted to board same, and most, if not all, of the circumstances thereof were controverted. The testimony on these points was often in very sharp conflict.\nAppellant complains that the verdict is clearly and manifestly against the preponderance of the evidence. After a careful consideration of all the evidence, refraining here from going into an analysis of the same, which could be of no particular benefit, we do not agree with this contention. Neither do we believe that the damages are excessive.\nAppellant also complains of three instructions given in behalf of appellee. We do not think the objections urged to these instructions, or any of them, are tenable.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John E. Kehoe and C. Le Roy Brown, for appellant.",
      "James C. McShane, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joseph F. Ryan, Appellee, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Appellant.\nGen. No. 15,437.\nVerdicts\u2014when not disturbed as against the evidence. A verdict will not be set aside on review as against the evidence unless clearly and manifestly against its weight.\nAction in case for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Charles M. Walker, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1909.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 3, 1911.\nJohn E. Kehoe and C. Le Roy Brown, for appellant.\nJames C. McShane, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0356-01",
  "first_page_order": 374,
  "last_page_order": 375
}