{
  "id": 2920240,
  "name": "Vitagraph Company of America, Appellee, v. Herman F. Schuettler, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vitagraph Co. of America v. Schuettler",
  "decision_date": "1918-03-12",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 28,561",
  "first_page": "595",
  "last_page": "596",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "209 Ill. App. 595"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 1959,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.534,
    "sha256": "bdfb5f51f39ab80d49822d42c4fc3422b2c4a89ed0a43f2ec2688861f6a0e9c5",
    "simhash": "1:95768321542b0594",
    "word_count": 324
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:09:41.322311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Vitagraph Company of America, Appellee, v. Herman F. Schuettler, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\n2. Mandamus\u2014u>hat not proper practice as to time for passing upon motion for appeal from judgment granting > writ. On a petition for a writ of mandamus, it is not in accordance with practice or the spirit of the law for the court to defer passing upon a duly-presented motion for appeal from a judgment granting the writ until after the writ has issued.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Barnes"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Samuel A. Ettelson, for appellant; Chester E. Cleveland, George Kandlik, and Roy S. Gaskell, of counsel.",
      "Benjamin F. Rioholson and Lewis F. Jacobson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Vitagraph Company of America, Appellee, v. Herman F. Schuettler, Appellant.\nGen. No. 28,561. (Not to be reported in full.)\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Mandamus, \u00a7 150 \u2014when petition for writ of to compel issuance of permit to exhidit photoplay is sufficient as against general demurrer. A petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the issue hy a city officer of a permit to exhibit a photoplay which sufficiently sets forth hy appropriate averments facts tending to show that the photoplay, as represented by the film, conforms to and does not in any way conflict with the requirements of the city ordinances, and that a permit was arbitrarily refused, is good as against a general demurrer, even though it contains surplusage.\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook county; the Hon. Robert E. Crowe, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed March 12, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nPetition by Vitagraph Company of America, a corporation, petitioner, against Herman F. Schuettler, General Superintendent of Police of the City of Chicago, defendant, for mandamus to compel the issue of a permit for the exhibition of a photoplay. From a judgment overruling a general demurrer to the petition, defendant appeals.\nSamuel A. Ettelson, for appellant; Chester E. Cleveland, George Kandlik, and Roy S. Gaskell, of counsel.\nBenjamin F. Rioholson and Lewis F. Jacobson, for appellee.\nSee Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number. \u2018"
  },
  "file_name": "0595-01",
  "first_page_order": 623,
  "last_page_order": 624
}