{ "id": 6140428, "name": "Ellis WILLIAMS v. LUFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY", "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Luft Construction Co.", "decision_date": "1990-06-20", "docket_number": "CA 90-202", "first_page": "198", "last_page": "199", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "31 Ark. App. 198" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "790 S.W.2d 921" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "260 Ark. 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1616761 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1976, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/260/0636-01" ] }, { "cite": "268 Ark. 86", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1715530 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/268/0086-01" ] }, { "cite": "643 S.W.2d 570", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1748169, 1748218 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/278/0109-01", "/ark/278/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 Ark. 106", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1748416, 1748218 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/278/0106-02", "/ark/278/0106-01" ] }, { "cite": "19 Ark. App. 335", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6652766 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/19/0335-01" ] }, { "cite": "29 Ark. App. 102", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138428 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/29/0102-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 235, "char_count": 3334, "ocr_confidence": 0.897, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0482681451391715e-07, "percentile": 0.5532492434887131 }, "sha256": "79c4f668d4e78d8cf964fdb8226c1b96cdb0765f5ea45017d1c10fc26022c627", "simhash": "1:f20e4ae5f02e1ac5", "word_count": 579 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:22:35.733205+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Ellis WILLIAMS v. LUFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellant in this workers\u2019 compensation case has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His appeal is from an opinion of the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission entered February 6, 1990. The record was tendered on May 7, 1990, but the Clerk of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals refused to docket the case because the record was submitted too late for filing.\nRule 5 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure requires that the record be filed and docketed within 90 days of the filing of the first notice of appeal, unless an extension is granted by the trial court. No extension was granted in the case at bar, and the appellant\u2019s first notice of appeal was not received by the Commission until March 28, 1990, more than 30 days after the Commission\u2019s order of February 6, 1990. See Ark. R. App. P. 4 (a). The appellant does not contend that March 28, 1990, was within the time allowed for filing a notice of appeal, but asserts that the notice of appeal was mailed to the Commission on February 15, 1990, in a timely manner, but was apparently lost in the mail and not received by the Commission. The appellant mailed copies of the notice of appeal to the attorneys for the appellees on February 15, 1990, as well, and has submitted affidavits executed by those attorneys showing that they received their copies of the notice of appeal in due course of the mail; one affidavit shows that a copy was received on February 16, 1990, the day after it was mailed. The appellant has also submitted an affidavit to show that the Commission accepted a duplicate copy of his notice of appeal, received March 28, 1990, as timely filed. He argues that the notice of appeal should be held to have been timely filed because its loss in the mail constituted an unavoidable casualty.\nIt is clear that the appellant\u2019s notice of appeal was mailed to the Commission in a timely manner and that, but for some unforeseeable circumstance, it would have been received by the Commission well within the period allowed for timely filing. Although we are not unsympathetic to the appellant\u2019s dilemma, we nevertheless find no error on the part of our clerk because the timely filing of a notice of appeal is essential to our jurisdiction. Blevins v. UIS, 29 Ark. App. 102, 780 S.W.2d 584 (1989). This is not a procedural rule but is instead a jurisdictional one, and although a person can consent to jurisdiction over his person, jurisdiction cannot otherwise be conferred by consent. Id. This rule applies to appeals from the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission, Lloyd v. Potlatch Corp., 19 Ark. App. 335, 721 S.W.2d 670 (1986), and the rule of unavoidable casualty does not apply to failure to file a timely notice of appeal. Burris v. Burris, 278 Ark. 106, 643 S.W.2d 570 (1982); see LaRue v. LaRue, 268 Ark. 86, 593 S.W.2d 185 (1980); City of Hot Springs v. McGeorge Contracting Co., 260 Ark. 636, 543 S.W.2d 475 (1976). Therefore, because the appellant\u2019s notice of appeal was not timely filed within thirty days of the Commission\u2019s opinion, we do not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.\nMotion denied.", "type": "majority", "author": "Per Curiam." } ], "attorneys": [ "E.W. Brockman, Jr., for appellant.", "Ralph Wilson and William H. Edwards, Jr., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Ellis WILLIAMS v. LUFT CONSTRUCTION COMPANY\nCA 90-202\n790 S.W.2d 921\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered June 20, 1990\nE.W. Brockman, Jr., for appellant.\nRalph Wilson and William H. Edwards, Jr., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0198-01", "first_page_order": 224, "last_page_order": 225 }