{
  "id": 5348798,
  "name": "Frank W. Peterson and Mary Peterson, his Wife, 997; Eliza Monahan, 998; Concezio Deacetis, 999; John Petruska and Margaret Petruska, his Wife, 1000; John August Rosell and Selma Rosell, his Wife, 1001; John August Rosell, 1002; Gustav A. Holmes and Mary Holmes, his Wife, 1003; John E. Schwab, 1004; Margaret Kessler, 1005; R. L. Fitzgerald, 1006; Oscar E. Busch, 1007; Frank Balogh and Elizabeth Balogh, 1008; Victor Anderson, 1009; Royce F. Zinger, et al., 1011; Emma Buchmeier Keeler, 1012; George F. Pierce and Lily Pierce, his Wife, 1013; Charles Lindstrom, 1014; Claimants, vs. State of Illinois",
  "name_abbreviation": "Peterson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1927-05-26",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "409",
  "last_page": "411",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "5 Ill. Ct. Cl. 409"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. Ct. Cl.",
    "id": 8793,
    "name": "Illinois Court of Claims"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 276,
    "char_count": 5940,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.56,
    "sha256": "4c8c20876dc85c543d13ef963ca321852239ab41d02fb8604d890bcfb377135b",
    "simhash": "1:dbb72ebbf8d75f8e",
    "word_count": 718
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:23.872152+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Frank W. Peterson and Mary Peterson, his Wife, 997; Eliza Monahan, 998; Concezio Deacetis, 999; John Petruska and Margaret Petruska, his Wife, 1000; John August Rosell and Selma Rosell, his Wife, 1001; John August Rosell, 1002; Gustav A. Holmes and Mary Holmes, his Wife, 1003; John E. Schwab, 1004; Margaret Kessler, 1005; R. L. Fitzgerald, 1006; Oscar E. Busch, 1007; Frank Balogh and Elizabeth Balogh, 1008; Victor Anderson, 1009; Royce F. Zinger, et al., 1011; Emma Buchmeier Keeler, 1012; George F. Pierce and Lily Pierce, his Wife, 1013; Charles Lindstrom, 1014; Claimants, vs. State of Illinois."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAll of said claims were brought on account of the construction of a hard road known as Route 22, running from the Indiana State line on -the east to the Mississippi river on the west, it being alleged by claimants that during the year 1925 this road was constructed upon and along a road called East Cass street, just outside the city limits of the city of Joliet, Illinois, and that a long, high and wide viaduct was built over the railroad tracks and right of way of the Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company, with long and gradual approaches thereto, and which viaduct is along and in front of the property of the claimants. It is further alleged that said viaduct was built in such a manner as to occupy all of the street or roadway and raised the roadbed thirty feet and upward fronting the properties of claimants, depriving claimants of the light and air and practical access to the public thoroughfare of said claimants\u2019 property fronts.\nEvidence was heard and the following stipulation was agreed upon and executed in behalf of the claimants by their attorneys, Snapp, Heise &' Snapp, and the defendants, The State of Illinois, by its Attorney General, Oscar E. Carlstrom, which stipulation is, in words and figures, as follows, to-wit: \u201cIt is agreed and stipulated between the parties, upon a consideration of the provisions that the testimony of the minimum witness as to the total amount of damages to property be agreed upon, except as to the damages in No. 999 and 1004, in which cases the damages are increased to an amount based upon actual offers for the purchase of the property, and that the undisputed proof of damages to business is also agreed upon, except that the damages in No. 1014 be reduced to an amount $1,000.00 less because of a clerical error in computation made by counsel for the-petitioners. It is further stipulated that in No. 1011 the property damages agreed upon shall .be the minimum amount as disclosed by the proof and . business damages in said No. 1011 shall be the amount disclosed by the uncontroverted proofs.\nIt is further stipulated that the following amounts arrived at as aforesaid are agreed upon:\nNo. \"Claimant \u2014 Injury to Real Estate\n997 Peterson .................................................? 2,500.00\n998 Monahan ................................................ 1,500.00\n999 Beacetis ................................................. 12,500.00\n1000 Petruska ................................................ 3,100.00\n1001 Rosell ......................................'............. 3,000.00\n1002 Resell ................................................... 3,500.00\n1003 Holmes .....;............................................ 2,500.00\n1004 Schwab .................................................. 3,000.00\n1005 Kessler .................................................. 7,800.00\n1006 Fitzgerald ............................................... 4,500.00\n1007 Busch ......................-............................. 3,600.00\n1008 Balogh .................................................. 2,950.00\n1009 Anderson ................................................ 1,500.00\n1012 Keeler ................................................... 2,450.00\n1013 Pierce ................................................... 1,550.00\n1011 Zinzer ................................................... 15,000.00\nInjury to Business\n999 Deacetis ................................................. 2,400.00\n1006 Fitzgerald ................................'............... 1,600.00\n1011 Zinzer ................................................... 10,000.00\n1014 Lindstrom ............................................... 1,736.40\nIt is therefore considered by this court, by reason of said stipulation, that the claimants be allowed the amount specified in said stipulation, and it is now herein \"recommended that claimants be allowed the amounts as hereinafter set forth:\nNo.\n997 Frank W. Peterson and Mary Peterson, his wife...........$ 2,500.00\n998 Eliza Monahan .......................................... 1,500.00\n999 Concezio Deacetis ....................................... 14,900.00\n1000 John Petruska and Margaret Petruska, his wife............ 3,100.00\n1001 John August Resell, and Selma Resell, his wife............ 3,000.00\n1002 John August Rosell.......... 3,500.00\n1003 Gustav A. Holmes, and Mary Holmes, his wife............. 2,500.00\n1004 John E. Schwab ......................................... 3,000.00\n1005 Margaret Kessler ........................................ 7,800.00\n1006 R. L. Fitzgerald ......................................... 6,100.00\n1007 Oscar E. Busch .......................................... 3,600.00\n1008 Frank Balogh, and Elizabeth Balogh...................... 2,950.00\n1009 Victor Anderson ......................................... 1,500.00\n1011 Royce F. Zinzer, et al.................................... 25,000.00\n1012 Emma Buchmeier Keeler ................................. 2,450.00\n1013 George F. Pierce and Lily Pierce, his wife................. 1,550.00\n1014 Charles Lindstrom ....................................... 1,736.40",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chief Justice Clarity"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Snapp, Heise & Snapp, for claimants.",
      "Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; William E. Trautmann, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Frank W. Peterson and Mary Peterson, his Wife, 997; Eliza Monahan, 998; Concezio Deacetis, 999; John Petruska and Margaret Petruska, his Wife, 1000; John August Rosell and Selma Rosell, his Wife, 1001; John August Rosell, 1002; Gustav A. Holmes and Mary Holmes, his Wife, 1003; John E. Schwab, 1004; Margaret Kessler, 1005; R. L. Fitzgerald, 1006; Oscar E. Busch, 1007; Frank Balogh and Elizabeth Balogh, 1008; Victor Anderson, 1009; Royce F. Zinger, et al., 1011; Emma Buchmeier Keeler, 1012; George F. Pierce and Lily Pierce, his Wife, 1013; Charles Lindstrom, 1014; Claimants, vs. State of Illinois.\nOpinion filed May 26, 1927.\nSnapp, Heise & Snapp, for claimants.\nOscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; William E. Trautmann, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent."
  },
  "file_name": "0409-01",
  "first_page_order": 431,
  "last_page_order": 433
}