{
  "id": 868967,
  "name": "West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Charlotte E. Warren",
  "name_abbreviation": "West Chicago Street Railroad v. Warren",
  "decision_date": "1896-01-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "101",
  "last_page": "102",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "62 Ill. App. 101"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 185,
    "char_count": 2100,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.466,
    "sha256": "f1e3e3d614e5002030ee71e9740454650363221a71aa4eb91421f8fd7d54905b",
    "simhash": "1:ffa61bc210282210",
    "word_count": 355
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:10:11.174453+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Charlotte E. Warren."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Waterman\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThe question in dispute in this case was one of fact; the defendant had, testifying in favor of its view of the way the accident happened, the greater number of. witnesses, and it claims a very great preponderance of the evidence.\nThe testimony was conflicting, and of such a nature that we do not feel justified in reversing the finding of the jury, sanctioned, as it has been, by the trial judge.\nThe judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Waterman"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Egbert Jamieson and John A. Rose, attorneys for appellant.",
      "Edward Maher and Charles C. Gilbert, attorneys for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "West Chicago Street Railroad Company v. Charlotte E. Warren.\n1. Verdict\u2014When Conclusive.\u2014Where the evidence is conflicting the verdict is conclusive.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cook County; the Hon. Francis Adams, Judge, presiding. Heard in this court at the October term, 1895.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed January 22, 1896.\nStatement of the Case.\nThis is an action by Charlotte E. Warren to recover damages for personal injuries, alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of the West Chicago Street Railway Company. It appears from the record that on Sunday, July 19, 1891, the plaintiff, together with her niece, Mrs. Wyckoff, took passage on one of the defendant\u2019s Van Bur\u00e9n street cars, near Ashland avenue, and rode eastward until the car approached Fifth avenue, when she says she signaled the conductor to let her off. The plaintiff claims that her niece had left the car, and she herself was in the act of stepping off when the car started suddenly, and she was thrown to the ground, thereby sustaining a fracture of the thigh bone. \u2022\nThe defendant claimed that the plaintiff stepped off the car before it had stopped and while it was going round the curve from Van Bur\u00e9n street to Fifth avenue.\nOn the trial the jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $9,000. The plaintiff subsequently remitted $4,000, and judgment was entered against the defendant for $5,000. .\nThe defendant appeals.\nEgbert Jamieson and John A. Rose, attorneys for appellant.\nEdward Maher and Charles C. Gilbert, attorneys for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0101-01",
  "first_page_order": 97,
  "last_page_order": 98
}