{
  "id": 2893336,
  "name": "Nunzio Russo v. Ignatia Russo. Ignatia Russo, Appellee, v. Nunzio Russo, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Russo v. Russo",
  "decision_date": "1915-05-25",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,764",
  "first_page": "608",
  "last_page": "609",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "192 Ill. App. 608"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 134,
    "char_count": 1350,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "sha256": "6759906d1ee3e21700afae1fb6f5a41d50fabc8db3e17e9fc5e52d4ff0b61672",
    "simhash": "1:c353eb8356238259",
    "word_count": 210
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:32:59.384140+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nunzio Russo v. Ignatia Russo. Ignatia Russo, Appellee, v. Nunzio Russo, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Baume"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Donald L. Morrill, for appellant; Robert W. Millar, of counsel.",
      "' Bauer & Donoghue, for appellee; Lester L. Bauer, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nunzio Russo v. Ignatia Russo. Ignatia Russo, Appellee, v. Nunzio Russo, Appellant.\nGen. No. 20,764.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Richard S. Tuthill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 25, 1915.\nStatement of the Case.\nBill by Nunzio Busso against Ignatia Russo for divorce. Defendant interposed a cross-bill charging desertion, and adulterous practices, as a result of which he communicated to defendant a venereal disease. The chancellor held that neither the charge of adultery nor the communication of a venereal disease was sustained, but found that complainant had deserted defendant and entered a decree in her favor on the cross-bill, from which complainant appeals.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nHusband and wife, \u00a7 264 \u2014when evidence sustains separate maintenance decree. Evidence on cross-bill for separate maintenance held to sustain wife\u2019s claim that she was living separate and apart from her husband without her fault.\nDonald L. Morrill, for appellant; Robert W. Millar, of counsel.\n' Bauer & Donoghue, for appellee; Lester L. Bauer, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0608-01",
  "first_page_order": 632,
  "last_page_order": 633
}