{
  "id": 2827648,
  "name": "Stanley Ciecierski, Defendant in Error, v. Martin Hermanski, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ciecierski v. Hermanski",
  "decision_date": "1913-10-09",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 17,615",
  "first_page": "113",
  "last_page": "113",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "182 Ill. App. 113"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1509,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.522,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.565170110192638e-08,
      "percentile": 0.28645125642460234
    },
    "sha256": "9a776d02cfc2f4bb449063970f269037c5d177031c3634864747220aee68eb25",
    "simhash": "1:8d3af007908e82f9",
    "word_count": 249
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:04:20.195306+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Stanley Ciecierski, Defendant in Error, v. Martin Hermanski, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gridley\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gridley"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John C. Curtin, for plaintiff in error; A. S. Lakey, of counsel.",
      "No appearance for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Stanley Ciecierski, Defendant in Error, v. Martin Hermanski, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 17,615.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Animals, \u00a7 47 \u2014questions for jury. Whether owner of dog had knowledge of his mischievous propensity or that the plaintiff\u2019s injury was attributable to owner\u2019s neglect is a question for the jury.\n2. Animals, \u00a7 15*\u2014proof of scienter. Scienter may be proved by attendant circumstances, without the necessity in all cases of proving prior cases of injury.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1467*\u2014when admission of evidence not prejudicial error. In an action to recover damages for a dog bite, admission of a certified copy of the records of the Municipal Court of Chicago showing that defendant had been fined for permitting his dog to run at large unmuzzled, held not prejudicial error.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Sheridan E. Pet, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1911.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed October 9, 1913.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Stanley Ciecierski against Martin Hermanski to recover damages sustained by plaintiff by reason of being bit by a dog belonging to defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff for seventy-five dollars, defendant brings error.\nJohn C. Curtin, for plaintiff in error; A. S. Lakey, of counsel.\nNo appearance for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XIV, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0113-01",
  "first_page_order": 137,
  "last_page_order": 137
}