{
  "id": 2420119,
  "name": "David Blumenfeldt v. John Haisman",
  "name_abbreviation": "Blumenfeldt v. Haisman",
  "decision_date": "1889-03-13",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "388",
  "last_page": "389",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "30 Ill. App. 388"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 121,
    "char_count": 1323,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.529,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.36532979335860893
    },
    "sha256": "27422851ad5f16c588128be1751d331480a068052cbe8ffd800047cb6421e556",
    "simhash": "1:0c101a206a18e1b1",
    "word_count": 217
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:02:08.632983+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "David Blumenfeldt v. John Haisman."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nJudgment for 8100 against appellant in a suit by appellee for malicious prosecution, is the subject of this appeal. Appellant contends that the court erred in admitting improper evidence. We find, however, that the evidence was part of res gestee. Ha ism-m was arrested on complaint of Biumenfeldt\u2019s wife, and several other parties were proven to have taken a more or less conspicuous part. What took place at the time of and during the disturbance was material on the question of probable cause, and the admission thereof was necessary to an intelligent judgment in the case.\nWe are not prepared to say that the finding of want of probable cause was produced by a misconception of the evidence. Mor do we perceive any fault in the instructions.\nThe judgment is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mr. B. M. Shaffner, for appellant.",
      "Mr. J. M. Beverley, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "David Blumenfeldt v. John Haisman.\nMalicious Prosecution\u2014Probable Cause\u2014Evidence Res Oest\u00ae.\nIn an action to recover damages for malicious prosecution in causing the plaintiff\u2019s arrest, what took place at the time of, and during the disturbance in connection with, the arrest, is material on the question of probable cause.\n[Opinion filed March 13, 1889.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Rollin' S. Williamson, Judge, presiding.\nMr. B. M. Shaffner, for appellant.\nMr. J. M. Beverley, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0388-01",
  "first_page_order": 384,
  "last_page_order": 385
}