{
  "id": 6656349,
  "name": "Gerland Lee GASS, a/k/a Gerl GASS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gass v. State",
  "decision_date": "1985-11-13",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 85-95",
  "first_page": "202",
  "last_page": "204",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "16 Ark. App. 202"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "699 S.W.2d 408"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 190,
    "char_count": 2202,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.897,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4381693681755191
    },
    "sha256": "e5b40653e596435488d3ebdd2c2628ebfaa135a03b435e17ad84a9d98bbf0d4f",
    "simhash": "1:895c52134ab61f09",
    "word_count": 385
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:43.530792+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gerland Lee GASS, a/k/a Gerl GASS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellant has appealed his conviction of conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance for which he was sentenced to a term of 30 years in the Department of Correction and a fine of $ 15,000. Appellant\u2019s brief does not comply with Rule. 9(b) and (d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.\nRule 9(b) requires that a brief begin with a concise statement qf the case sufficient to enable us to read the abstract with an understanding of the nature of the case, general factual situation and action taken by the court. Appellant\u2019s statement of the case does none of these things. Rule 9(d) requires that the abstract of the record contain a condensation of those material parts of the record and testimony which are necessary to an understanding by the court of all questions presented for decision and provides that abstracts not in the first person shall not be accepted.\nAll of appellant\u2019s arguments are based on the refusal of the trial court to grant his motion to suppress the evidence. The abstract does not contain the motion to suppress or the court\u2019s ruling on that motion. It consists of selected and unconnected, verbatim questions and answers but does not contain most of the evidence on which his arguments are based. It gives us no understanding of the facts or the sequence of events on which his arguments are based.\nAppellant\u2019s brief is so flagrantly deficient that it causes an unreasonable and unjust delay in the disposition of the case. However, in view of the sentence imposed this court finds that it would be unjustly harsh to affirm the case for this noncompliance.\nPursuant to Rule 9(e)(2) appellant\u2019s attorney will be allowed twenty (20) days to reprint the brief to conform to Rule 9(b) and (d) at his own expense. Appellee will be allowed fifteen (15) days thereafter to revise or supplement its brief.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Crawford, Hays & Crawford, by: Robert H. Crawford; and Henry & Mooney, by: John R. Henry, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Connie Griffin, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gerland Lee GASS, a/k/a Gerl GASS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 85-95\n699 S.W.2d 408\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered November 13, 1985\nCrawford, Hays & Crawford, by: Robert H. Crawford; and Henry & Mooney, by: John R. Henry, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Connie Griffin, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0202-01",
  "first_page_order": 232,
  "last_page_order": 234
}