{
  "id": 5578781,
  "name": "Henry H. Gage v. The City of Chicago",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gage v. City of Chicago",
  "decision_date": "1901-10-24",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "108",
  "last_page": "109",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "193 Ill. 108"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "192 Ill. 586",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        5578819
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/192/0586-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "188 Ill. 423",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        3233943
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/188/0423-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 150,
    "char_count": 1902,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.602,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.740314213912215e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5308041125177568
    },
    "sha256": "bd73f073c25b278e97715e28aeaefc5594b5f239e28bde8367a36f7e5539922f",
    "simhash": "1:90c56f8c1c6fe6b6",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:49:30.831419+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Henry H. Gage v. The City of Chicago."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Carter\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment confirming a special assessment against appellant\u2019s property to pave Turner avenue, from Jackson boulevard to West VanBuren street, with an asphalt pavement.\nThe appellant appeared and filed objections, the principal one being that there was another proceeding pending to pave the street, or a part of it, with cedar blocks. When the hearing of the legal objections came on it appeared that the first judgment had been reversed by this court, and that the city had abandoned the first proposed improvement to pave with cedar blocks and had decided to pave the street with asphalt, and had therefore repealed the ordinance and caused to be vacated and dismissed all proceedings under the same. This the city had the right to do under section 56 of the local Improvement act. (McChesney v.City of Chicago, 188 Ill. 423.) The objection was properly overruled.\nThe next objection is, that one of the members of the board of local improvements was not present when the first resolution was passed. This objection was properly overruled under the authority of Gage v. City of Chicago, 192 Ill. 586.\nThe judgment will be affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Carter"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "F. W. Becicer, for appellant.",
      "Charles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, and Denis E. Sullivan, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Henry H. Gage v. The City of Chicago.\nOpinion filed October 24, 1901\nRehearing denied December 5, 1901.\nPublic improvements\u2014right of city to abandon improvement and repeal ordinance. Under section 56 of the Local Improvement act of 1897, where a judgment confirming an assessment to pave a street with cedar blocks has been reversed by the Supreme Court, the city may repeal the ordinance and vacate all proceedings thereunder and pass a new ordinance for an asphalt pavement.\nAppeal from the County Court of Cook county; the Hon. W. T. Hodson, Judge, presiding.\nF. W. Becicer, for appellant.\nCharles M. Walker, Corporation Counsel, and Denis E. Sullivan, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0108-01",
  "first_page_order": 108,
  "last_page_order": 109
}