{
  "id": 5155054,
  "name": "Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. John Kincaid",
  "name_abbreviation": "Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Co. v. Kincaid",
  "decision_date": "1895-06-08",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "83",
  "last_page": "84",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "60 Ill. App. 83"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 83,
    "char_count": 738,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.52,
    "sha256": "58a22b770a86b4d8b1aec97586aaf94687e8629365685b64fd87371e4d3eaa98",
    "simhash": "1:dac6f760ce4aba29",
    "word_count": 123
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:22:36.351146+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. John Kincaid."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Opinion Per Curiam.\nThe material points in law and of fact arising upon this record are substantially the same as in the case of this appellant v. G. W. Sellers, decided by this court at this term.\nBoth cases were to recover damages occasioned by the same fire.\nAdopting the opinion in the Sellers case the judgment in this case is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Opinion Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Fbank T. Hamilton, attorney for appellant; John T. Dye, of counsel.",
      "Welty & Steeling, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cleveland, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis Railway Company v. John Kincaid.\n1. Follows the Previous Case.\nAppeal from, the Circuit Court of McLean County; the Hon. Thomas F. Tipton, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the November term, 1894.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed June 8, 1895.\nFbank T. Hamilton, attorney for appellant; John T. Dye, of counsel.\nWelty & Steeling, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0083-01",
  "first_page_order": 81,
  "last_page_order": 82
}