{
  "id": 5413720,
  "name": "Sarah J. Kelly, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kelly v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1916-12-18",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,495",
  "first_page": "239",
  "last_page": "240",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "202 Ill. App. 239"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 176,
    "char_count": 2303,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.53,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.402282561120511e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5160082692079732
    },
    "sha256": "41e3dd3f8f69696c140401787adbe9c19a966e7ae9ad47c6e2962d1868916ff3",
    "simhash": "1:d771cf11718cbf78",
    "word_count": 390
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:59:19.228114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sarah J. Kelly, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Holdom\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Gabriebs, \u00a7 476 \u2014when evidence sufficient to sustain judgment for defendant in action for personal injuries. In an action by a street car passenger against the street railway company for damages for personal injuries sustained while plaintiff was attempting to leave the car, and in which defendant contended that plaintiff was thrown and injured in attempting to get off while the car was in motion and before it had stopped, evidence held sufficient to support a judgment for defendant.\n3. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1414*\u2014when finding of trial court will not be disturbed: The finding of a trial judge will not be disturbed on appeal as unsupported by the evidence unless such finding is manifestly contrary to the probative force of the evidence.\n4. Dismissal, nonsuit and discontinuance, \u00a7 43*\u2014when motion for nonsuit is too late. A motion for a nonsuit in a case tried without, a jury cannot be entertained after the trial court has announced its findings and declared its decision of the case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Holdom"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Joseph H. Lawler, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Warren D. Bartholomew and Frank L. Kriete, for defendant in error; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sarah J. Kelly, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 22,495.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court_ of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 18, 1916.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Sarah J. Kelly, plaintiff, against the Chicago City Railway Company, defendant, for damages for personal injuries alleged to be due to the sudden starting of defendant\u2019s street car while plaintiff was attempting to alight therefrom. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff brings error.\nJoseph H. Lawler, for plaintiff in error.\nWarren D. Bartholomew and Frank L. Kriete, for defendant in error; W. W. Gurley and J. R. Guilliams, of counsel.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. New trial\u2014when refusal to grant motion for is not error. In a trial before the court without a jury, error cannot be assigned on the failure of the court to grant a motion for a new trial, because no such motion is necessary, and the error, if any, in such condition arises on the court\u2019s finding in the entry of judgment thereon.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0239-01",
  "first_page_order": 265,
  "last_page_order": 266
}