{
  "id": 2858952,
  "name": "Nellie A. Cross, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Chicago, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cross v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1916-03-02",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 20,638",
  "first_page": "177",
  "last_page": "178",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "198 Ill. App. 177"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "271 Ill. 404",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        4818898
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/271/0404-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 138,
    "char_count": 1884,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.55,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08514762829802046
    },
    "sha256": "782da2a27626709dbc369a2b7f2f28ae59d2687b44f575236f980b5f7f53d130",
    "simhash": "1:cad3d235428d82fc",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:33.440984+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nellie A. Cross, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Chicago, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pam\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1802 \u2014when Appellate Court will reverse ancl remand case because of subsequent decision of Supreme Court on similar point. Where Supreme Court holds point of law contrary to holding of Appellate Court in different case but in same term of court, the Appellate Court will reverse and remand such case which it had previously affirmed.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13*\u2014when statement of claim in action against city for personal injuries sufficient. In fourth-class cases in the Municipal Court of Chicago, a statement of claim in an action against a city for personal injuries need not allege the giving of statutory notice of injuries to the city.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Pam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edward H. Stearns, for plaintiff in error.",
      "N. L. Piotrowski, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nellie A. Cross, Plaintiff in Error, v. City of Chicago, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 20,638.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. James C. Martin, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1914.\nReversed and remanded.\nOpinion filed March 2, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Nellie A. Cross, plaintiff, against the City of Chicago, defendant, on account of personal injuries sustained by her. From a judgment of the Municipal Court of Chicago dismissing her statement of claim because of failure to allege the giving of statutory notice, plaintiff brings error.\nOn the second day of the present term the Appellate Court affirmed the judgment of the Municipal Court, but the attention of the court having since been called to the decision in Enberg v. City of Chicago, 271 Ill. 404, the former opinion is withdrawn and the judgment reversed and remanded.\nEdward H. Stearns, for plaintiff in error.\nN. L. Piotrowski, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0177-01",
  "first_page_order": 201,
  "last_page_order": 202
}