{
  "id": 2904077,
  "name": "Margaret Moore, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moore v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1914-12-22",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,187",
  "first_page": "113",
  "last_page": "114",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "190 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": 178,
    "char_count": 1954,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.524,
    "sha256": "d6f99571ecf4a88a8675661f537bafa8fd75ec090924ca34e6ba1df9d5b32f85",
    "simhash": "1:8df3c834daae10f8",
    "word_count": 331
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:39:36.956740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Margaret Moore, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "N. J. Shupe, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Warren D. Bartholomew and Frank L. Kriete, for defendant in error; W. W. Gurley and J. E. Guilliams, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Margaret Moore, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,187.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph SAbath, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed December 22, 1914.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Margaret Moore against the Chicago City Railway Company for personal injuries sustained in alighting from a street car. From a judgment in favor of defendant, plaintiff brings error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nStreet railroads, \u00a7 131 \u2014when verdict is against weight of evidence. Where a passenger testified that she was assisted off a street car hy the conductor and that the car started while she had only one foot on the ground and still had hold of the car handle, and she fell on her side receiving certain, bruises, and two passengers who got off the front end of the car testified that she had fallen on the street and the car suddenly stopped shortly thereafter leaving her on the ground four or five feet back of the car, and the plaintiff\u2019s testimony was corroborated in other particulars, the verdict for the defendant is held to he against the weight of the evidence.\nPlaintiff and three other passengers testified to the occurrence. Defendant had no witnesses to the res gestae. It was contended that there was such inherent improbability and conflict in the testimony given in behalf of the plaintiff that the jury were justified in rejecting her theory of the accident and may well have believed that she attempted to alight from the car before it stopped.\nN. J. Shupe, for plaintiff in error.\nWarren D. Bartholomew and Frank L. Kriete, for defendant in error; W. W. Gurley and J. E. Guilliams, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0113-01",
  "first_page_order": 135,
  "last_page_order": 136
}