{
  "id": 5825363,
  "name": "Leo Kravitz, by Julius Kravitz, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kravitz v. Chicago City Railway Co.",
  "decision_date": "1918-04-24",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,362",
  "first_page": "287",
  "last_page": "288",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ill. App. 287"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 174,
    "char_count": 2136,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.574,
    "sha256": "cfa0584082494fcce2e9d74a9adcd807f3de20b5eb8021382f86094bd8be18a9",
    "simhash": "1:c3cc5a33580c9030",
    "word_count": 342
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:15:15.348169+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Leo Kravitz, by Julius Kravitz, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Presiding Justice Taylor"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Moses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error.",
      "John E. Kehoe and Watson J. Perry, for defendant in error; W. W. G-urley and J. R. G-uilliams, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Leo Kravitz, by Julius Kravitz, Plaintiff in Error, v. Chicago City Railway Company, Defendant in Error.\nGen. No. 23,362.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\nError to the Superior Court of Cook county; the Hon. M. L. McKinley, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 24, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Leo Kravitz, a minor, by Julius Kravitz, his next friend, plaintiff, against CMcago City Railway Company, a corporation, defendant, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to. have been received through being struck by defendant\u2019s car at a street intersection. To reverse a judgment for defendant, plaintiff prosecutes this writ of error.\nAbstract of the Decision.\n1. Street railroads, \u00a7 131 \u2014when shown that plaintiff was injured while \u201cflipping\u2019\u2019 defendant\u2019s street car. In an action to recover for personal injuries, evidence examined and held sufficient to support a finding that plaintiff, a boy between 12 and 13 years of age, was injured while \u201cflipping\u201d defendant\u2019s street car.\n2. Instructions, \u00a7 10*\u2014limitation on number. The number of instructions given may not be arbitrarily limited by the trial court.\n3. Street railroads, \u00a7 140*\u2014when instructions in action for personal injuries not reversibly erroneous. In an action against a street railway company for personal injuries, instructions given, examined and held not ground for reversing a judgment for defendant. \u2022\n, 4. Instructions, \u00a7 14*\u2014when reiteration of principles of law is not ground for reversal. Even though a number of instructions involve the reiteration of certain principles of law which are more favorable to one party than the other, the repetition is not ground for reversal if the instructions are appropriate to the law and evidence of the case.\nMoses, Rosenthal & Kennedy, for plaintiff in error.\nJohn E. Kehoe and Watson J. Perry, for defendant in error; W. W. G-urley and J. R. G-uilliams, of counsel.\nSee lUinois Notes Digest, Vola. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number#"
  },
  "file_name": "0287-01",
  "first_page_order": 313,
  "last_page_order": 314
}
