{
  "id": 5290859,
  "name": "Paul Herman v. North Chicago St. R. R. Co.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Herman v. North Chicago St. R. R. Co.",
  "decision_date": "1901-04-16",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "465",
  "last_page": "466",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "94 Ill. App. 465"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "49 Ill. App. 488",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5129869
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/49/0488-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ill. App. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5013289
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill-app/36/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "139 Ill. 536",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3006858
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/139/0536-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 116,
    "char_count": 1306,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.579,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5212164879110712
    },
    "sha256": "780b80163bb6c0c61ba13d3f281c6185ddae40e909f60988f16240dcf5079ba1",
    "simhash": "1:d9b6726352c93254",
    "word_count": 226
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:05:08.743041+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Paul Herman v. North Chicago St. R. R. Co."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justioe Horton\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe only questions presented by counsel for appellant must be determined upon a consideration of the testimony in the case. But the bill of exceptions does not show that it contains all the testimony introduced on the trial, and it must therefore be presumed that there was before the trial court all the evidence necessary to justify the judgment rendered. C., B. & Q. R. R. Co. v. People, 139 Ill. 536; C. & M. Ry. Co. v. Cope, 36 Ill. App. 97; Lindgren v. Swartz, 49 Ill. App. 488. The judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justioe Horton"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John M. Hess, attorney for appellant.",
      "John A. Boss and Louis Boisot, Jr., attorneys for appellee; W. W. Gurley, of counsel."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Paul Herman v. North Chicago St. R. R. Co.\n1. Presumptions\u2014Where the Bill of Exceptions Does Not Shoio that it Contains All the Evidence. \u2014Where the bill of exceptions does not show that it contains ail the evidence introduced on the trial, it will be presumed that there was before the trial court all the evidence necessary to justify the judgment rendered.\nTrespass on the Case, for personal injuries. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Axel Chytraus, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1900.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 16,1901.\nJohn M. Hess, attorney for appellant.\nJohn A. Boss and Louis Boisot, Jr., attorneys for appellee; W. W. Gurley, of counsel."
  },
  "file_name": "0465-01",
  "first_page_order": 489,
  "last_page_order": 490
}