{
  "id": 3022128,
  "name": "Lawrence Newton, Appellee, v. E. J. Ohrenstein, Appellant",
  "name_abbreviation": "Newton v. Ohrenstein",
  "decision_date": "1918-05-14",
  "docket_number": "Gen. No. 23,661",
  "first_page": "304",
  "last_page": "305",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "211 Ill. App. 304"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 118,
    "char_count": 1479,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.547,
    "sha256": "f9fec60894533247326119fc7db33a59132643efa84b6861559d9025769e4428",
    "simhash": "1:042ce41c14651449",
    "word_count": 244
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:38.810297+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lawrence Newton, Appellee, v. E. J. Ohrenstein, Appellant."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Matchett\ndelivered the opinion of the court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Matchett"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bunge, Harbour & Schmidt, for appellant.",
      "Comerford & Cohen, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lawrence Newton, Appellee, v. E. J. Ohrenstein, Appellant.\nGen. No. 23,661.\n(Not to be reported in full.)\n\u25a0 Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Hosea W. Wells, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the October term, 1917.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed May 14, 1918.\nStatement of the Case.\nAction by Lawrence Newton, plaintiff, against E. J. Ohrenstein, defendant. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Appellee\u2019s motion to strike the stenographic report was granted and the report ordered stricken, and motion by appellant to set aside that order was reserved to the hearing.\nBunge, Harbour & Schmidt, for appellant.\nAbstract of the Decision.\nMunicipal Court of Chicago, \u00a7 26* \u2014 when certificate is insufficient as basis for subsequent entry of nunc pro tunc order by judge signing stenographic report. A certificate by a judge of the Municipal Court of Chicago, executed on the date of the expiration of an extension of the time for filing the stenographic report, that, in the absence from the city of the trial judge, the document was presented to the certifying judge in open court to be signed, is not sufficient basis for the subsequent entry of a nunc pro tunc order by the trial judge signing the report as of such date, in the absence of an affirmative showing of due diligence on the part of appellant by certificate of the trial judge.\nComerford & Cohen, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0304-01",
  "first_page_order": 358,
  "last_page_order": 359
}
