{
  "id": 2942803,
  "name": "Stephen J. Barry, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barry v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1917-03-08",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 21,769",
  "first_page": "254",
  "last_page": "255",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "204 Ill. App. 254"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 102,
    "char_count": 1046,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.521,
    "sha256": "d844f1f5521bfa8e08bbe0fb53a8ad22e57bb4fe156ec4237df56b65dd1c069f",
    "simhash": "1:2f4bda7dd05a13fd",
    "word_count": 178
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:07.214052+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Stephen J. Barry, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel A. Ettelson, for plaintiff in error; Boy S. G-askill and George A. Curran, of counsel.",
      "A. G. Dicus, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Stephen J. Barry, Defendant in Error, v. City of Chicago, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 21,769.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Patrick B. Flanagan, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1915.\nReversed.\nOpinion filed March 8, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Stephen J. Barry, plaintiff, against City of \u2018Chicago, defendant, to recover the difference between the salary of one police office and that of another in the police service of the defendant during the interim in which he was acting as a minor officer after demotion as a major officer. From a judgment for plflintiff for the difference in amount, defendant brings error.\nThis case is governed by the decision in Harnett v. City of Chicago, ante, p. 252, the facts being similar, and the judgment is reversed.\nSamuel A. Ettelson, for plaintiff in error; Boy S. G-askill and George A. Curran, of counsel.\nA. G. Dicus, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0254-01",
  "first_page_order": 280,
  "last_page_order": 281
}