{
  "id": 2927473,
  "name": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Merritt O. Hoover, Plaintiff in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Hoover",
  "decision_date": "1917-07-11",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,130",
  "first_page": "174",
  "last_page": "174",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "207 Ill. App. 174"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 124,
    "char_count": 1517,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "sha256": "5260112bdb2220e9a26cb4ec433f6950759f371ce427aa7e7e17b55fa1c78093",
    "simhash": "1:0364cfafd01d60f4",
    "word_count": 235
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:34.192092+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Merritt O. Hoover, Plaintiff in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Goodwin"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Earl J. Walker, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Samttel A. Ettelson and Harry B. Miller, for defendant in error j Daniel Webster, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "City of Chicago, Defendant in Error, v. Merritt O. Hoover, Plaintiff in Error.\nGen. No. 22,130.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Municipal cobpobations, \u00a7 864 \u2014 what proof required to sustain conviction for violation of ordinance. Where an ordinance provides for a fine or imprisonment, a conviction \u2019cannot be sustained unless supported by a clear preponderance of the evidence.\n2. Municipal cobpobations, \u00a7 864* \u2014 when evidence sufficient to sustain conviction for driving automobile while intoxicated. On a prosecution for the violation of section 2013 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago, prohibiting any intoxicated person from driving an automobile, evidence held sufficient to sustain the conviction of defendant.\nError to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Edmund K. Jabecki, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed July 11, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nProsecution by the City of Chicago, plaintiff, against Merritt 0. Hoover, defendant, for driving an automobile while intoxicated in violation of section 2013 of the Revised Municipal Code of Chicago. From a judgment of conviction, defendant brings error.\nEarl J. Walker, for plaintiff in error.\nSamttel A. Ettelson and Harry B. Miller, for defendant in error j Daniel Webster, of counsel.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0174-01",
  "first_page_order": 200,
  "last_page_order": 200
}