{
  "id": 6139589,
  "name": "HOLIDAY INN and U.S. Fire Insurance Company v. Darryl COLEMAN",
  "name_abbreviation": "Holiday Inn v. Coleman",
  "decision_date": "1989-11-01",
  "docket_number": "CA 89-377",
  "first_page": "157",
  "last_page": "159",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "29 Ark. App. 157"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "778 S.W.2d 649"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "279 Ark. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1746995
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "173"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/279/0168-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-715",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 1
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 Ark. 168",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1746995
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/279/0168-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 342,
    "char_count": 6037,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.898,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.8736632973367743e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7266329040805082
    },
    "sha256": "2a7cc661e39a956e7e8de5b90e24b48e7c61f733266b1a834573c1a562448552",
    "simhash": "1:0e40103cab5e7fdb",
    "word_count": 994
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:00:46.162740+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mayfield, J., concurs in part and dissents in part."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "HOLIDAY INN and U.S. Fire Insurance Company v. Darryl COLEMAN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe Arkansas Self Insurers Association and the Arkansas Hospital Association, et al., have filed motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs in conjunction with this workers\u2019 compensation case. In Ferguson v. Brick, 279 Ark. 168, 649 S.W.2d 397 (1983), the Arkansas Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, traced the history of the amicus curiae brief. The supreme court recognized that \u201cthe undertaking of the amicus has changed from that of an impartial friend of the court to that of an acknowledged adversary.\u201d The reason that such briefs have been welcomed is \u201cthe possibility that an amicus brief will have legal significance.\u201d Ferguson, 279 Ark. at 173.\nThe actual holding in Ferguson v. Brick is that permission to file such a brief would be denied when the purpose was nothing more than to make a political endorsement of the basic brief and it was obvious that the moving party would discuss nothing of legal significance.\nAlthough the movants here are \u201cacknowledged advocates\u201d we cannot say with assurance that their briefs would be of no legal significance. We therefore grant the motions.\nMayfield, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      },
      {
        "text": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge,\nconcurring in part; dissenting in part. This court has granted motions allowing amici curiae briefs to be filed in this case. I dissent as to the brief to be filed by the Arkansas Self Insurers Association.\nRule 19 of the rules of this court and the Arkansas Supreme Court provides that a motion for permission to file an amicus curiae brief should \u201cstate the reasons why such a brief is thought to be necessary.\u201d The motion of the Arkansas Self Insurers Association states its brief is thought to be necessary because: (1) the Self Insurers Association is a nonprofit organization consisting of approximately 89 companies employing 60,000 members throughout the state, (2) the Association realizes \u201cthe impact of the judicial decisions from which appeal is now taken upon self-insured employers throughout the state,\u201d and (3) the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission has \u201cerroneously\u201d interpreted the law involved in this case.\nI think those reasons fall far short of revealing any necessity for the filing of an amicus curiae brief by the Association. At best, they simply reveal that the Association thinks the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission has erroneously interpreted the law and unless corrected this will \u201cimpact\u201d upon the members of the Association. The \u201claw\u201d involved is referred to as Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-715 (1987). A quick look at this statute reveals that it deals with fees for legal services rendered in litigation over claims for workers\u2019 compensation. The Association tells us nothing about the precise question involved. It apparently involves the Commission\u2019s allowance of an attorney\u2019s fee to be paid by the employer of an injured worker, and it is probably a safe bet that the Association thinks the Commission should not have allowed the fee or should have allowed a smaller fee. But other than registering its protest, why is it necessary for the Association to file an amicus curiae brief?\nFurthermore, it is plain to me that the Association really does not want to file an amicus curiae brief in the traditional sense of the term. In Ferguson v. Brick, 279 Ark. 168, 649 S.W.2d 397 (1983), the Arkansas Supreme Court pointed out that the term amicus curiae \u201cis old Latin which literally means \u2018a friend of the court.\u2019 \u201d However, the court said, \u201cthe undertaking of the amicus has changed from that of an impartial friend of the court to that of an acknowledged adversary.\u201d So, in Ferguson the court denied the motion for permission to file an amicus brief because it appeared \u201cnothing of legal significance\u201d would be discussed and the proposed brief would be \u201csolely for the purpose of judicial lobbying.\u201d\nWhile I cannot say that the Arkansas Self Insurers Association brief would discuss \u201cnothing\u201d of legal significance or that it would be \u201csolely\u201d for the purpose of judicial lobbying, I can state that the Association\u2019s motion, in my judgment, has not demonstrated why it is necessary that the brief be filed and it is perfectly obvious that the Association hopes its brief will help persuade this court to make a decision in keeping with the Association\u2019s interests.\nIn 3A C.J.S. Amicus Curiae \u00a7 3 (1973), it is stated:\nThe privilege to be heard as an amicus curiae rests within the discretion of the court, and the court may grant or refuse leave, according as it deems the proffered information timely and useful or otherwise.\nI would deny the motion of the' Arkansas Self Insurers Association to file an amicus curiae brief in this case.\nAnother motion to file amici curiae briefs has been filed by the Arkansas Hospital Association and five other associations, although the motion states it is anticipated that one joint brief will be submitted by them. I concur in allowing these briefs, or brief, to be filed. Contrary to the motion filed by the Arkansas Self Insurers Association, the motion by these other associations states the specific point they want to argue, states that the appellant insurance company has no \u201cconcrete interest\u201d in the point these other associations wish to argue, and states that the point is not likely to be briefed unless the motion is allowed. Under those circumstances, I think it proper to allow these associations to file a joint amici curiae brief.\nTherefore, I dissent in part and concur in part in the action of the majority of this court.",
        "type": "concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part",
        "author": "Melvin Mayfield, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Walter A. Murray, for movant Arkansas Self Insurers Ass\u2019n.",
      "Michael W. Mitchell of Mitchell & Rochell and Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Diane S. Mackey, for movants Arkansas Hospital Ass\u2019n, Arkansas Medical Society, Arkansas Chiropractic Ass\u2019n, Arkansas Chapter of American Physical Therapy Ass\u2019n, Arkansas Podiatric Medical Ass\u2019n, and Arkansas State Dental Ass\u2019n."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "HOLIDAY INN and U.S. Fire Insurance Company v. Darryl COLEMAN\nCA 89-377\n778 S.W.2d 649\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered November 1, 1989\nWalter A. Murray, for movant Arkansas Self Insurers Ass\u2019n.\nMichael W. Mitchell of Mitchell & Rochell and Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Diane S. Mackey, for movants Arkansas Hospital Ass\u2019n, Arkansas Medical Society, Arkansas Chiropractic Ass\u2019n, Arkansas Chapter of American Physical Therapy Ass\u2019n, Arkansas Podiatric Medical Ass\u2019n, and Arkansas State Dental Ass\u2019n."
  },
  "file_name": "0157-01",
  "first_page_order": 181,
  "last_page_order": 183
}