{
  "id": 3146104,
  "name": "The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1899-02-22",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "505",
  "last_page": "505",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "178 Ill. 505"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "112 Ill. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2860558
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/112/0263-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "172 Ill. 263",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3173068
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/172/0263-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 90,
    "char_count": 810,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.572,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.08885267056110221
    },
    "sha256": "7afc476419889b077fb08af91688b31e135da167eab05f2f0f0a76dbb8fcf635",
    "simhash": "1:0642a777f97c33d8",
    "word_count": 137
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:37.829946+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThe ordinance providing for the improvement and the special assessment complained of in this case is the same as the one held insufficient in Holden v. City of Chicago, 172 Ill. 263. We see no sufficient reason for overruling that case, and it must control this.\nThe judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. Parmalee Prentice, for plaintiff in error.",
      "Charles S. Thornton, Corporation Counsel, John A. May, and Armand P. Teefy, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "The Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company v. The City of Chicago.\nOpinion filed February 22, 1899\nRehearing denied April 7, 1899.\nThis case is controlled by the decision in Holden v. City of Chicago, 112 Ill. 263.\nWrit of Error to the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.\nE. Parmalee Prentice, for plaintiff in error.\nCharles S. Thornton, Corporation Counsel, John A. May, and Armand P. Teefy, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0505-01",
  "first_page_order": 505,
  "last_page_order": 505
}