{
  "id": 3224449,
  "name": "Cornelius W. Lane et al. v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lane v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1900-04-17",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "368",
  "last_page": "368",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "185 Ill. 368"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "184 Ill. 436",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3221671
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/184/0436-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "184 Ill. 436",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3221671
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/184/0436-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 118,
    "char_count": 1252,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.571,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.09082286264566003
    },
    "sha256": "b2263ce058f7b060bec0002b3539cd6bf6f92da273a72ba3e28510536d6ba3a0",
    "simhash": "1:96454565cd3dd7b8",
    "word_count": 219
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:50:44.032606+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Cornelius W. Lane et al. v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam:\nThis is a special assessment proceeding instituted to pay the cost of curbing and paving Ash-land avenue from Fifty-ninth street to Sixty-third street.\nThe plaintiffs in error claim the ordinance in the case at bar is void for uncertainty. On the other hand, it is submitted that the ordinance attached to the petition did not become a part of the record because not preserved by bill of exceptions, and is therefore not before this court for review. The same question arose in Foss v. City of Chicago, 184 Ill. 436, and we there held, where the ordinance was attached to the petition it became a part of the record without being preserved by bill of exceptions. The decision in that case is conclusive here, and for the reasons there stated the judgment will be reversed and the cause remanded.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam:"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William F. Carroll, and M. F. Cure, for plaintiffs in error.",
      "Charles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, Armand F. Teefy, and William M. Pindell, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cornelius W. Lane et al. v. The City of Chicago.\nOpinion filed April 17, 1900.\nThis case is controlled by the decision in Foss v. City of Chicago, 184 Ill. 436.\nWrit of Error to the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. Orrin N. Carter, Judge, presiding.\nWilliam F. Carroll, and M. F. Cure, for plaintiffs in error.\nCharles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, Armand F. Teefy, and William M. Pindell, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0368-01",
  "first_page_order": 368,
  "last_page_order": 368
}