{
  "id": 6140813,
  "name": "PHILLIPS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. Hugh COOK and Joan Cook",
  "name_abbreviation": "Phillips Construction Co. v. Cook",
  "decision_date": "1991-05-15",
  "docket_number": "CA 90-320",
  "first_page": "224",
  "last_page": "227",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "34 Ark. App. 224"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "808 S.W.2d 792"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "304 Ark. 309",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1880893
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/304/0309-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 Ark. 318",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1916804
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/305/0318-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "781 S.W.2d 491",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1886851,
        1885460
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/300/0542-01",
        "/ark/301/0087-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 Ark. 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1885460
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/301/0087-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 284,
    "char_count": 4989,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.911,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4553222659890336e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8049760816171135
    },
    "sha256": "af9fd6c76e1fc571d6554127423b4c45a05a61344129010a9143dad7e1883ab1",
    "simhash": "1:28327c77aaa49c71",
    "word_count": 890
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:46.151700+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Mayfield and Rogers, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "PHILLIPS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. Hugh COOK and Joan Cook"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George K. Cracraft, Chief Judge.\nPhillips Construction Company attempts to bring this appeal from the denial of its motion for a new trial. It argues that the amount of damages awarded to it was too low and that the trial court should have ordered a new trial pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 59(a)(5). Appellees, Hugh and Joan Cook, attempt to cross-appeal from the denial of their Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to set aside the award of attorney\u2019s fees to appellant. We are unable to consider either of these issues because neither appellant nor appellees properly perfected their appeals under Ark. R. App. P. 4.\nRule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure provides in pertinent part as follows:\n(b) Time for Filing Notice of Appeal Extended by Timely Motion. Upon the filing in the trial court within the time allowed by these rules of a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict under Rule 50(b), of a motion to amend the court\u2019s findings of fact or to make additional findings under Rule 52(b), or of a motion for a new trial under Rule 59(b), the time for filing of notice of appeal shall be extended as provided in this rule.\n(c) Disposition of Posttrial Motion. If a timely motion listed in section (b) of this rule is filed in the trial court by any party, the time for appeal for all parties shall run from the entry of the order granting or denying a new trial or granting or denying any other such motion. Provided, that if the trial court neither grants nor denies the motion within thirty (30) days of its filing, the motion will be deemed denied as of the 30th day. A notice filed before the disposition of any such motion or, if no order is entered, prior to the expiration of the 30-day period shall have no effect. A new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion or from the expiration of the 30-day period. . . .\n(d) Time for Appeal from Disposition of Motion. Upon disposition of a motion listed in section (b) of this rule, any party desiring to appeal from the judgment, decree or order originally entered shall have thirty (30) days from the entry of the order disposing of the motion or the expiration of the 30-day period provided in section (c) of this rule within which to give notice of appeal.\n( Emphasis added.)\nThe sequence of relevant filings in this case is as follows:\nApril 2, 1990 Entry of judgment for appellant, including award of attorney\u2019s fees.\nApril 10, 1990 Appellant\u2019s motion for new trial.\nApril 25, 1990 Appellees\u2019 motion to set aside award of attorney\u2019s fees.\nApril 30, 1990 Appellant\u2019s notice of appeal.\nMay 15, 1990 Order denying both motions above.\nJune 13, 1990 Appellant\u2019s second notice of appeal.\nJune 22, 1990 Appellees\u2019 notice of cross-appeal.\nAppellant\u2019s April 10 motion for a new trial was timely filed under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59(b) and, therefore, served to extend the deadline for filing its notice of appeal. Ark. R. App. P. 4(b). According to Rule 4(c), appellant\u2019s time for appeal would run either from entry of an order on the motion or from the thirtieth day after filing the motion, whichever came first. Ferguson v. Sunbay Lodge, Ltd., 301 Ark. 87, 781 S.W.2d 491 (1989). Here, since the trial court did not act on appellant\u2019s motion within thirty days, it was deemed denied as of the thirtieth day, or May 10,1990. Consequently, both the April 30 and June 13 notices of appeal filed by appellant were ineffectual, as a notice of appeal filed before May 10 or after June 11 would be untimely under Rule 4(c). Jasper v. Johnny\u2019s Pizza, 305 Ark. 318, 807 S.W.2d 664 (1991). Nor did appellees\u2019 April 25 motion to set aside the award of attorney\u2019s fees serve to extend the time for appellant to appeal, as appellees\u2019 motion was not timely for that purpose under any of the rules listed in Ark. R. App. P. 4(b).\nAppellees\u2019 notice of cross-appeal is likewise ineffectual. While a notice of cross-appeal ordinarily is timely if filed within ten days of a notice of appeal, Ark. R. App. P. 4(a), no timely notice of appeal was filed in this case. Although we otherwise could treat appellees\u2019 \u201cnotice of cross-appeal\u201d as a notice of appeal in its own right, we cannot in this case since appellees\u2019 notice was not filed until June 22, or thirty-eight days after the May 15 denial of appellees\u2019 post-trial motion.\nWhile these issues were not raised by the parties, they are jurisdictional ones that we are required to address even when the parties do not. Eddings v. Lippe, 304 Ark. 309, 802 S.W.2d 139 (1991). Because this court is without jurisdiction, we dismiss the appeal and cross-appeal.\nDismissed.\nMayfield and Rogers, JJ., agree.\nThe next business day after Saturday, June 9, 1990. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 6(a).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George K. Cracraft, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hurst Law Offices, by: Terri Harris, for appellant.",
      "Hugh and Joan Cook, Pro Se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "PHILLIPS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. Hugh COOK and Joan Cook\nCA 90-320\n808 S.W.2d 792\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered May 15, 1991\nHurst Law Offices, by: Terri Harris, for appellant.\nHugh and Joan Cook, Pro Se."
  },
  "file_name": "0224-01",
  "first_page_order": 250,
  "last_page_order": 253
}