{
  "id": 5409348,
  "name": "Richard F. Lillis, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiif in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lillis v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1917-01-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,502",
  "first_page": "193",
  "last_page": "194",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "203 Ill. App. 193"
    }
  ],
  "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": 2146,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.548,
    "sha256": "49621c7a9d82aad5f6ec30689530ab5a831167c3f2eb43b54173c33a46c313d3",
    "simhash": "1:1fe3c817d43b98fc",
    "word_count": 358
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:43.745976+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Richard F. Lillis, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiif in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Limitation of actions, \u00a7 68 \u2014when statement of claim does not state new cause of action. The filing of a second statement of claim in an action for personal injuries, which simply states the same actionable cause with more particularity than the first statement of claim, which was stricken from the files, does not state a new cause of action so as to bar a right of recovery because of the expiration of the one-year period for the commencement of actions in such cases.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice McSurely"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel A. Ettelson and Charles B. Francis, for plaintiff in error; Maxwell B. Herman and Kaplan & Kaplan, of counsel.",
      "Earl J. Walker, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Richard F. Lillis, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiif in Error.\nGen. No. 22,502.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and ebbor, \u00a7 788 \u2014when action of trial court upon motions toill not he reviewed. . The action of the trial court upon motions will not be reviewed where neither the evidence nor proceedings have been preserved for review by bill of exceptions, or otherwise.\n2. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1303 \u2014when presumed that evidence is sufficient to support verdict. Where neither the evidence nor the proceedings in a personal injury action have been preserved for review by the bill of exceptions, or otherwise, it must be presumed, under the pleadings, that the evidence is sufficient to support the verdict.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edward T. Wade, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 8, 1917.\nRehearing denied January 22, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Bichard F. Lillis, plaintiif, against the City of Chicago, defendant, to recover damages for injuries received through a defective sidewalk. From a judgment for eight hundred dollars in favor of plaintiff upon trial by jury, defendant brings error.\nSamuel A. Ettelson and Charles B. Francis, for plaintiff in error; Maxwell B. Herman and Kaplan & Kaplan, of counsel.\nEarl J. Walker, for defendant in error.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, game topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0193-01",
  "first_page_order": 217,
  "last_page_order": 218
}