{
  "id": 2535056,
  "name": "Elbert M. Oliver, Appellant, vs. The Retirement Board of the Municipal Employees' Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Oliver v. Retirement Board of the Municipal Employees' Annuity & Benefit Fund",
  "decision_date": "1941-02-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 25997",
  "first_page": "641",
  "last_page": "642",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "375 Ill. 641"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 161,
    "char_count": 1963,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.756,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5214365779626534
    },
    "sha256": "6e875ee450129c7bb9cce02428d3fa3f4ba0c740acbde3e4cdb4094ff6377c18",
    "simhash": "1:81421cc29e258e0f",
    "word_count": 317
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:27:46.727273+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Elbert M. Oliver, Appellant, vs. The Retirement Board of the Municipal Employees\u2019 Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Stone\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nAppellant complains of the judgment of the superior court of Cook county quashing the writ of certiorari sued out by him to review the action of the Retirement Board of the Municipal Employees\u2019 Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, which had reduced appellant\u2019s payments- due him from that fund on account of injuries he had sustained while on duty. Counsel state that the issue involved is the construction of sections 46 and 57^ of the act to provide for the Employees\u2019 Annuity and Benefit Fund for certain cities. Ill. Rev. Stat. 1939, chap. 24, pars. 1089, 1100\u00bd.\nAppellant contends here, and his petition for certiorari in the court below was based on that contention, that by virtue of the two sections of the act hereinabove referred to, he should receive two separate and distinct benefit payments, one for himself and another for dependent children. His assignments of error present only questions as to the construction of the act.\nThe trial court certified that a constitutional question is involved. Counsel for' appellant here states that he has some doubt about the existence of a constitutional question in the appeal, but that because of the certificate of the trial court he felt the matter should be presented here.\nCases involving only the construction of a statute dp not involve a constitutional question and the certificate of the trial judge that a constitutional question is involved does not confer upon this court jurisdiction on direct review.\nThe cause is transferred to the Appellate Court for the First District.\n, Lause transferred.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Stone"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John F. Cusack, and James J. Cusack, Jr., (Robert Irmiger, of counsel,) for appellant.",
      "Barnet Hodes, Corporation Counsel, ( George F. Mulligan, of counsel.) for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 25997.\nElbert M. Oliver, Appellant, vs. The Retirement Board of the Municipal Employees\u2019 Annuity and Benefit Fund of Chicago, Appellee.\nOpinion filed, February 18, 1941.\nJohn F. Cusack, and James J. Cusack, Jr., (Robert Irmiger, of counsel,) for appellant.\nBarnet Hodes, Corporation Counsel, ( George F. Mulligan, of counsel.) for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0641-01",
  "first_page_order": 641,
  "last_page_order": 642
}