{
  "id": 6142172,
  "name": "Deborah A. BONE v. James R. BONE, Jr.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bone v. Bone",
  "decision_date": "1984-02-08",
  "docket_number": "CA 84-17",
  "first_page": "347",
  "last_page": "349",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "10 Ark. App. 347"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "663 S.W.2d 945"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "240 Ark. 541",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1727593
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/240/0541-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ark. App. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6142061
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/4/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 Ark. 541",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1727593
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/240/0541-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "4 Ark. App. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6142061
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 2,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/4/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "240 Ark. 541",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1727593
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1966,
      "opinion_index": 2,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/240/0541-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 280,
    "char_count": 4286,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.857,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.1749605865052364
    },
    "sha256": "8febca8bdc03375d81bd81b5bb5e83d5ec1e85ed456482a6feb3ed15aafe5e30",
    "simhash": "1:b5ea722e76ce1970",
    "word_count": 755
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:08.069200+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Deborah A. BONE v. James R. BONE, Jr."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nWe find the Supreme Court\u2019s holding in Goodin v. Goodin, 240 Ark. 541, 400 S.W.2d 665 (1966), controlling in this special proceeding. Therefore, appellant\u2019s motion to stay the chancellor\u2019s custody order pending an appeal to this Court is hereby dismissed without prejudice to request such a stay from the trial court.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      },
      {
        "text": "Tom Glaze, Judge,\nconcurring. I concur. My reasons are fully set forth in my concurring opinion in McCluskey v. Kerlen, 4 Ark. App. 334, 631 S.W.2d 18 (1982). Suffice it to say, McCluskey was an adoption case and this Court\u2019s decision there in no way controls the custody matter before us now. The Supreme Court\u2019s rationale in Goodin v. Goodin, 240 Ark. 541, 400 S.W.2d 665 (1966), is clearly applicable to this cause and based on the record presented to us, the majority defers to the chancellor\u2019s superior position to decide the request for stay.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "Tom Glaze, Judge,"
      },
      {
        "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge,\ndissenting. In a per curiam opinion the majority of this court has today dismissed the appellant\u2019s motion asking that we stay a trial court\u2019s change of custody order pending determination of the appeal of that order. Today\u2019s decision is contrary to our decision in McCluskey v. Kerlen, 4 Ark. App. 334, 631 S.W.2d 18 (1982), where we granted a stay of the trial court\u2019s award of custody pending determination of the appeal of an adoption proceeding. I dissented in McCluskey and I dissent today.\nIn McCluskey, a motion had been filed in the trial court seeking a stay of the enforcement of that court\u2019s change of custody order, but no order was filed in this court reflecting a decision by the trial court on that motion. My dissent stated that we should remand the matter to the trial court directing it to hold a hearing on the motion and to enter an order setting out its findings of fact and conclusions of law; and I said we should order the trial court to defer any further action for a period of 15 days after that hearing so that either party could have an opportunity to ask us to review the trial court\u2019s order before it was put into effect. The dissent then explained:\nIf this procedure is followed, we can pass upon the propriety of the probate court\u2019s action. We need to have that court\u2019s findings before us before we decide whether or not its judgment should be stayed. As matters now stand, this court is granting a stay without benefit of the findings of the trial court which heard this matter and which may know more about it than we do.\nI would follow the same procedure today and for the same reasons. Here too, a motion for stay was filed in the trial court and was not ruled upon \u2014 at least not directly. Seven days after entry of the change of custody order, it was stayed on the court\u2019s own motion, pending disposition of perjury charges filed against a witness whose testimony was the primary basis of the court\u2019s decision. Six months later, the court, without a hearing, entered an order finding that the witness had been acquitted on the perjury charges and lifting the stay order. The complete transcript of the proceedings in the trial court have been filed here and there is no order by the trial court which rules upon appellant\u2019s request for a stay, and there are no findings of fact or law in that regard. Those findings would be extremely helpful to us and we should have taken the necessary steps to secure them before ruling on the motion to stay filed in this court.\nWhile today\u2019s per curiam may result in another opportunity for the trial court to make those findings, we should have, at least, granted a stay for a period sufficient in time to allow that court to act. As it stands now, there is the potential for conflicting orders which would unnecessarily pull this five-year-old child back and forth until the appeal is decided.\nParenthetically, I note that if trial courts have had any question of their authority to stay or supersede their own change of custody orders pending determination of an appeal, it should be dispelled by today\u2019s per curiam and the case of Goodin v. Goodin, 240 Ark. 541, 400 S.W.2d 665 (1966), cited therein.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Chief Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John R. Byrd, for appellant.",
      "John Frank Gibson, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Deborah A. BONE v. James R. BONE, Jr.\nCA 84-17\n663 S.W.2d 945\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered February 8, 1984\nJohn R. Byrd, for appellant.\nJohn Frank Gibson, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0347-01",
  "first_page_order": 369,
  "last_page_order": 371
}