{
  "id": 6648967,
  "name": "George BOEHM d/b/a BOEHM & ASSOCIATES v. Lorin MOENCH d/b/a MOENCH INVESTMENT COMPANY, LTD.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Boehm v. Moench",
  "decision_date": "1986-11-05",
  "docket_number": "CA 85-313",
  "first_page": "218",
  "last_page": "219",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "19 Ark. App. 218"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "718 S.W.2d 491"
    }
  ],
  "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": 160,
    "char_count": 1894,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.888,
    "sha256": "404aa77211f5b529ff20bb140895144655cc66676b87ae8f5c6f4e80b91552aa",
    "simhash": "1:e7bf36141f12d285",
    "word_count": 315
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:48:59.358455+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George BOEHM d/b/a BOEHM & ASSOCIATES v. Lorin MOENCH d/b/a MOENCH INVESTMENT COMPANY, LTD."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nUpon review of the briefs in this case, we find that both the appellant\u2019s and appellee\u2019s abstracts flagrantly violate Ark. R. Sup. Ct. and Ct. App. 9(d). The appellant failed to include in his abstract the pleadings and the judgment from which he appeals. The appellee\u2019s supplemental abstract is not an impartial condensation of the records, as the appellee consistently underscores portions of the testimony, a practice prohibited by Rule 9. Furthermore, the appellee\u2019s supplemental abstract does not correct the deficiencies discovered in the appellant\u2019s abstract.\nWhile we could affirm the decision under Rule 9(e)(2), we find that action to be unduly harsh as the appellant has a sufficient abstract to show there may be merit in his position. Therefore, pursuant to Rule 9(e)(2), we will give the appellant\u2019s attorney twenty (20) days from today, November 5, 1986, to reprint the brief, at the attorney\u2019s expense, to conform to the requirements of Rule 9. The appellee will be granted fifteen (15) additional days from the date the appellant\u2019s brief is filed in which to file a revised brief.\nBecause the reprinting of the appellee\u2019s brief is caused at least in part by his own attorney\u2019s violation of Rule 9(d), the appellee\u2019s attorney will be responsible for the expense of reprinting the appellee\u2019s brief, except to the extent it is revised due to changes in the appellant\u2019s brief \u2014 those expenses shall be paid for by the appellant\u2019s attorney. The appellee will be required to file a detailed statement of costs so that the Court may determine the relevant expenses to be paid by each attorney.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mobley & Smith, by: William F. Smith, for appellant.",
      "James R. Marschewski, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George BOEHM d/b/a BOEHM & ASSOCIATES v. Lorin MOENCH d/b/a MOENCH INVESTMENT COMPANY, LTD.\nCA 85-313\n718 S.W.2d 491\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered November 5, 1986\nMobley & Smith, by: William F. Smith, for appellant.\nJames R. Marschewski, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0218-01",
  "first_page_order": 250,
  "last_page_order": 251
}