{
  "id": 2492530,
  "name": "Boston Store of Chicago, Inc., Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. - (Fred Roti, Defendant in Error.)",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boston Store of Chicago, Inc. v. Industrial Commission",
  "decision_date": "1944-01-18",
  "docket_number": "No. 27370",
  "first_page": "17",
  "last_page": "18",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "386 Ill. 17"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill.",
    "id": 8772,
    "name": "Illinois Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "383 Ill. 272",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        2485577
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/383/0272-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2661,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.771,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2819485204996214e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6177250102226037
    },
    "sha256": "8699079d4eaa8ecd2312466ac9accaf12902f5669b7fb1c75a3c8ef47c40d8a9",
    "simhash": "1:dcbd42af7ebcb598",
    "word_count": 443
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:17:32.115915+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Boston Store of Chicago, Inc., Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (Fred Roti, Defendant in Error.)"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Chiep Justice Smith\ndelivered the opinion of the court:\nThis cause originated in a claim for compensation filed with the Industrial Commission. On petition of Boston Store of Chicago, Inc., we granted a writ of error.\nThe claim is nowhere set out in the abstract of record, either in full or in abstract form. The only reference in the abstract to the claim is found on page 1 where it is recited: \u201cApplication for adjustment of claim filed, etc.\u201d The abstract is further deficient in that it does not disclose either the decision of the arbitrator, the decision of the commission or the decision of the circuit court. All that is contained in the abstract with reference to the judgment sought to be reviewed is found on page 55 of the abstract. The complete abstract page in this respect, . is as follows:\n\u201cDecision of the Arbitrator filed May 13, 1941.\n\u201cPetition for review filed May 20, 1941.\n\u201cCase argued orally before the Industrial Commission.\n\u201cDecision on review by Industrial Commission filed December 17, A. D. 1942.\n\u201cExtension of time for filing of transcript of evidence.\n\u201cWrit of certiorari filed with the Industrial Commission.\n\u201cCertification of record by secretary of Industrial Commission.\n\u201cOrder of Circuit Court of Cook County, confirming the award of the Industrial Commission, entered April 9, A. D. 1943.\n\u201cNotice to petitioner\u2019s counsel of ordering of complete transcript of record.\n\u201cNotice to the clerk of the Circuit Court, directing him to prepare a complete authenticated transcript of the record.\u201d\nClearly this is insufficient to present anything to this court for review. It nowhere appears from the abstract what the judgment of the circuit court was or what questions are involved. It has been repeatedly announced by this court that the court will not search the record to supply deficiencies in the abstract. Everything necessary to decide the questions raised must appear in the abstract. This rule has been announced and adhered to in the published decisions of this court over a long period of years. Many of these cases are referred to in Hayes v. Industrial Com. 383 Ill. 272. For the reasons stated in that case, the court cannot review the supposed judgment in this case. The writ of error is dismissed.\nWrit of error dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Chiep Justice Smith"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Abraham B. Litow, (Orr, Vail, Lewis & Orr, on petition for rehearing,) both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.",
      "George B. Cohen, and Jose Ward Hoover, both of Chicago, for defendant in error."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "(No. 27370.\nBoston Store of Chicago, Inc., Plaintiff in Error, vs. The Industrial Commission et al. \u2014 (Fred Roti, Defendant in Error.)\nOpinion filed January 18, 1944\nRehearing denied March 20, 1944\nAbraham B. Litow, (Orr, Vail, Lewis & Orr, on petition for rehearing,) both of Chicago, for plaintiff in error.\nGeorge B. Cohen, and Jose Ward Hoover, both of Chicago, for defendant in error."
  },
  "file_name": "0017-01",
  "first_page_order": 19,
  "last_page_order": 20
}