{
  "id": 5220962,
  "name": "William B. White v. The Sisters of Charity, etc.",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. Sisters of Charity",
  "decision_date": "1898-06-02",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "279",
  "last_page": "280",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "77 Ill. App. 279"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 146,
    "char_count": 1725,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.504,
    "sha256": "9ee37837206cef273bd80d691dfc4d8a4ed0d5a1991ca35d72972765d67b35b3",
    "simhash": "1:797871ed80db2ef0",
    "word_count": 301
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:36:43.320990+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William B. White v. The Sisters of Charity, etc."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Pee Cubiam.\nBy Rule 20 of this court it is provided that \u201c printed briefs will be required in all eases. * * * The briefs should contain a short, clear statement of the points, and the authorities in support thereof.\nIn Hooper v. McCaffrey, at this term of this court, we said: \u201c There has been in this ease a negligent disregard by the plaintiff in error of the requirement of this rule.\u201d That is most emphatically true in this case, and we refer to the opinion there given and the authorities there cited. It is unnecessary to repeat them here.\nFor want of a brief by appellant this appeal will be dismissed at appellant\u2019s cost unless his attorneys shall file on or before June 22, A. D. 1898, printed briefs such as are required by th\u00e9 rules of this court. If such briefs are filed within that time, the cause will be then, con tinned at appellant\u2019s cost, with leave to appellee to file, on or before the second day of the next term of. this court,, such additional brief and argument as to attorneys for appellee may seem necessary to meet such brief of appellant; the cost of printing such additional brief and argument also to be taxed as costs against appellant.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Pee Cubiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George W. Plummer, attorney for appellant.",
      "Bichard Prendergast and J. E. Deakih, attorneys for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William B. White v. The Sisters of Charity, etc.\n1. Appellate Court Practice\u2014Failure to File Printed Briefs.\u2014 For a disregard of Rule 20, requiring printed briefs in all cases, the court orders the appeal dismissed, unless briefs .are filed within a day named, etc.\nAppeal, from the Superior Court of Cook County.\nHeard in the Branch Appellate Court of the First District, at the March term, 1898.\nDismissed unless, etc.\nOpinion filed June 2, 1898.\nGeorge W. Plummer, attorney for appellant.\nBichard Prendergast and J. E. Deakih, attorneys for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0279-01",
  "first_page_order": 281,
  "last_page_order": 282
}
