{
  "id": 5032566,
  "name": "John L. Dvorak v. Anna Maloch",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dvorak v. Maloch",
  "decision_date": "1891-06-25",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "131",
  "last_page": "132",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ill. App. 131"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "9 Ill. App. 490",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        2410452
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/9/0490-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 155,
    "char_count": 1714,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.15495131183323815
    },
    "sha256": "591f422ac70238951252d884989844fa492ae68db2cd81de525986ad34369e02",
    "simhash": "1:52c93b27789ef7c7",
    "word_count": 291
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:42:40.256502+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John L. Dvorak v. Anna Maloch."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Waterman, J.\nAppellee having heen severely bitten by a dog belonging to appellant, brought an action on the case to recover for the injury she had sustained. The plaintiff below, was a tenant of certain premises belonging to the defendant below; the plaintiff was bitten while descending a flight of stairs, the dog being fastened near them.\nThe defendant testified that prior to her being bitten, lie gave the plaintiff directions not to use those stairs while certain alterations were being made to the premises, and that if she was not satisfied so to do, she could move out. Whether he did give such directions, was one of the disputed questions in the case.\nThe court in the fourth instruction for the plaintiff ignored this dispute and instructed the jury as though no claim had been made by the defendant that he had forbidden the plaintiff t\u00f3 make use of such stairway; this was error, for which this judgment must be reversed.\nThe knowledge of the defendant that his dog was of a ferocious disposition and accustomed to bite mankind, was hardly sufficiently shown. Moss v. Pardridge, 9 Ill. App. 490.\nThe judgment of the court below is reversed and the cause remanded. jReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Waterman, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Messrs. Jones & Lusk, for appellant.",
      "Messrs. Moses & Pam, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John L. Dvorak v. Anna Maloch.\nBogs\u2014Recovery for Bite of\u2014Evidence\u2014Instructions.\nIn an action brought to recover for an injury sustained through the bite of defendant\u2019s dog, this court holds, in view of the giving of an erroneous instruction in behalf of the plaintiff, that the judgment in her favor can not stand.\n[Opinion filed June 25, 1891.]\nAppeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Richard W. Clifford, Judge, presiding.\nMessrs. Jones & Lusk, for appellant.\nMessrs. Moses & Pam, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0131-01",
  "first_page_order": 127,
  "last_page_order": 128
}