Niedermeyer v. Streamwood Park District

Appellate Court of Illinois

Niedermeyer v. Streamwood Park District

280 N.E.2d 13, 3 Ill. App. 3d 1078, 1972 Ill. App. LEXIS 1939

CourtAppellate Court of Illinois

DecidedMarch 2, 1972

DocketNo. 71-156

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 280 N.E.2d 13 (Niedermeyer v. Streamwood Park District) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Court of Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Niedermeyer v. Streamwood Park District, 280 N.E.2d 13, 3 Ill. App. 3d 1078, 1972 Ill. App. LEXIS 1939 (Ill. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant appeals from a judgment in the sum of $218.00.

The plaintiff having failed to file a brief, this court is authorized to accept the defendant’s contentions of error and summarily reverse the judgment pro forma. (People v. Spinelli (1967), 83 Ill.App.2d 391, 393.) In the instant case, we are unable to do so because of the record before us.

Defendant’s brief recites in its statement of facts that the plaintiff filed a small claims complaint in the amount of $218.00 for labor and material furnished on January 21, 1967, January 23, 1967 and January 26, 1967; that on April 22, 1971, trial was commenced without a court reporter, and that judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. The argument portion of the brief then states that numerous errors occurred throughout the trial. The claimed errors, however, are unsupported by any record and amount to no more than conclusionary statements on the part of defendant.

We have been furnished neither a report of proceedings (under the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 323(c)) nor an agreed statement of facts (under 323(d)), and thus find it impossible to consider the errors claimed by the defendant. For this reason, the judgment will be affirmed. See Perez v. Janota (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 90, 92.

Judgment affirmed.

SEIDENFELD, P. J., and ABRAHAMSON, J., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mr. JUSTICE THOMAS J. MORAN

delivered the opinion of the court:

The defendant appeals from a judgment in the sum of $218.00.

The plaintiff having failed to file a brief, this court is authorized to accept the defendant’s contentions of error and summarily reverse the judgment pro forma. (People v. Spinelli (1967), 83 Ill.App.2d 391, 393.) In the instant case, we are unable to do so because of the record before us.

Defendant’s brief recites in its statement of facts that the plaintiff filed a small claims complaint in the amount of $218.00 for labor and material furnished on January 21, 1967, January 23, 1967 and January 26, 1967; that on April 22, 1971, trial was commenced without a court reporter, and that judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff. The argument portion of the brief then states that numerous errors occurred throughout the trial. The claimed errors, however, are unsupported by any record and amount to no more than conclusionary statements on the part of defendant.

We have been furnished neither a report of proceedings (under the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 323(c)) nor an agreed statement of facts (under 323(d)), and thus find it impossible to consider the errors claimed by the defendant. For this reason, the judgment will be affirmed. See Perez v. Janota (1969), 107 Ill.App.2d 90, 92.

Judgment affirmed.

SEIDENFELD, P. J., and ABRAHAMSON, J., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 N.E.2d 13, 3 Ill. App. 3d 1078, 1972 Ill. App. LEXIS 1939, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/niedermeyer-v-streamwood-park-district-illappct-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack