{
  "id": 2600527,
  "name": "The City of Chicago, Appellant, vs. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Chicago v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.",
  "decision_date": "1935-06-14",
  "docket_number": "No. 22961",
  "first_page": "620",
  "last_page": "621",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "360 Ill. 620"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 145,
    "char_count": 1612,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.753,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.365401805278995
    },
    "sha256": "a6d700037e077c950879d5385bd4c4905a66da3d9b9a5e875b35e0c5bc804f0d",
    "simhash": "1:6460768044e6cfda",
    "word_count": 271
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:50:33.681675+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "The City of Chicago, Appellant, vs. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Shaw\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis is an appeal from a judgment of the municipal court of Chicago by which the appellee was found not guilty of violating a section of the revised Chicago code which required certain wholesale food establishments to be licensed.\nThe record contains a certificate of the trial judge stating that the validity of a municipal ordinance is involved and that in his opinion the public interest requires that the appeal shall be taken directly to this court. (Smith\u2019s Stat. 1933, chap, 110, par. 199, p. 2191.) A search of the record discloses the following to have been the finding of the court:\nThe court: \u201cThere will be a finding against the city-in this case.\nMr. Foss: \u201cWhat is the court\u2019s thought about the ordinance, may I ask? Is it your opinion that the company is not within the purview of the ordinance?\nThe court: \u201cThat is correct.\u201d\nFrom this it sufficiently appears that the court did not pass upon the validity of the ordinance but merely found that the business or establishment of the appellee was not within its provisions or requirements. The validity of an ordinance not being necessarily involved we are without jurisdiction, and the cause will be transferred to the Appellate Court for the First District. City of Chicago v. Peterson, ante, p. 177.\n, Cause transferred.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Shaw"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William H. Sexton, Corporation Counsel, (Martin H. Foss, and Roy D. KeEhn, Jr., of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "John L. McInErney, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 22961.\nThe City of Chicago, Appellant, vs. The Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, Appellee.\nOpinion filed June 14, 1935.\nWilliam H. Sexton, Corporation Counsel, (Martin H. Foss, and Roy D. KeEhn, Jr., of counsel,) for appellant.\nJohn L. McInErney, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0620-01",
  "first_page_order": 620,
  "last_page_order": 621
}