{
  "id": 3224264,
  "name": "David Ayers et al. v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ayers v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1900-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "253",
  "last_page": "253",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. 253"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "176 Ill. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3157003
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/176/0207-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 Ill. 455",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3221541
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/184/0455-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "176 Ill. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3157003
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/176/0207-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 100,
    "char_count": 1023,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.588,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.09081533324915854
    },
    "sha256": "f968623ad1f8df8a991668853a5ac68c09adb50c87293a2f6798c4bf4c25b388",
    "simhash": "1:014746b9e67f6c30",
    "word_count": 182
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:44.032606+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "David Ayers et al. v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nIn these cases judgments were entered confirming special assessments to pay for grading, paving and curbing certain streets in the city of Chicago. In each case the ordinance providing for the improvement is subject to the same objection as the ordinance passed upon in Lusk v. City of Chicago, 176 Ill. 207. Upon the authority of that case and Hurlbut v. City of Chicago, 184 Ill. 455, the judgments herein are reversed and the causes remanded.\n\u201e 7 7 7 , Reversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George W. Wilbur, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Charles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, Arm and F. Teefy, and William M. Pindell, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "David Ayers et al. v. The City of Chicago.\nOpinion filed April 17, 1900.\nThis case is controlled by the decisions in Lusk v. City of Chicago, 176 Ill. 207, and Hurlbut v. City of Chicago, 184 id. 455.\nWrit of Error to the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.\nGeorge W. Wilbur, for plaintiffs in error.\nCharles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, Arm and F. Teefy, and William M. Pindell, for defendant in error.\nWith this case are determined Nos. 948, Adam v. City of Chicago, and 956, Bass v. Same."
  },
  "file_name": "0253-01",
  "first_page_order": 253,
  "last_page_order": 253
}