{
  "id": 2918742,
  "name": "Stella Smith, Appellee, v. P. M. Swinehart, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. Swinehart",
  "decision_date": "1917-12-21",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 22,927",
  "first_page": "175",
  "last_page": "176",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 175"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1729,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.556,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0568490205358748e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5555532388181704
    },
    "sha256": "c34d79116638524059155f05b3d455a77cc0e3d3b7aacda64e9189044cfca2b7",
    "simhash": "1:6dc60b04748d1296",
    "word_count": 291
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Stella Smith, Appellee, v. P. M. Swinehart, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n3. Dentists, \u00a7 3*\u2014when immaterial whether dental employee is licensed. Whether or not an employee of a dentist was a licensed dentist was immaterial in an action against the dentist to recover for negligent work done by the employee working in defendant\u2019s office for him or under his direction.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Edmund W. Pottle, for appellant.",
      "No appearance for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Stella Smith, Appellee, v. P. M. Swinehart, Appellant.\nGen. No. 22,927. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Appeal and error, \u00a7 1301 -\u2014when finding of court presumed to he sustained hy evidence. Where hearing was by the court without a jury, it will be presumed that the finding was upon the material evidence only, although some or most of the evidence was objectionable.\n2. Municipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 13*\u2014what need not he alleged in statement of claim for negligent dental work. In an action to recover for alleged negligent dental work, done in part by the defendant and in part by his employee in his office working for him or under his direction, it was unnecessary to allege in the statement of claim either that the employee made the agreement for the work or that he performed it.\nAppeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Peter C. Walters, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1916.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed December 21, 1917.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Stella Smith, plaintiff, against P. M. Swinehart, defendant, to recover damages for negligent dental work. From a judgment for plaintiff for $25, defendant appeals.\nEdmund W. Pottle, for appellant.\nNo appearance for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number."
  },
  "file_name": "0175-01",
  "first_page_order": 203,
  "last_page_order": 204
}