{
  "id": 6141208,
  "name": "William CROW v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crow v. Weyerhaeuser Co.",
  "decision_date": "1993-04-21",
  "docket_number": "CA 91-479",
  "first_page": "225",
  "last_page": "226",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "41 Ark. App. 225"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "852 S.W.2d 334"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "28 Ark. App. 90",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137558
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "97"
        },
        {
          "page": "684"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/28/0090-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "39 Ark. App. 93",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137484
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/39/0093-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "827 S.W.2d 600",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "37 Ark. App. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137567
      ],
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/37/0085-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-715",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(b)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ark. App. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137710
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/40/0094-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 205,
    "char_count": 2493,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.917,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7521314949249936
    },
    "sha256": "8bcd3a221b580621d8a067ef69baf40d05f2051f606175402910e0fc03f44c86",
    "simhash": "1:982c400546fff1fb",
    "word_count": 428
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:56:01.419347+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William CROW v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn an unpublished opinion, handed down on December 23,1992, we reversed the above case and remanded it to the Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission for reconsideration in light of our opinion in Keller v. L.A. Darling Fixtures, 40 Ark. App. 94, 845 S.W.2d 15 (1992).\nCounsel for appellant has now filed a motion for attorney\u2019s fee under the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 11-9-715(b) (1987). That provision will apply \u201cif the claimant prevails on appeal\u201d at the \u201cappellate court\u201d level. Thus, the question presented is whether our remand for reconsideration means that the claimant prevailed in his appeal to this court.\nWe allowed an attorney\u2019s fee to the appellee-claimant in Cagle Fabricating and Steel, Inc. v. Patterson, 37 Ark. App. 85, 827 S.W.2d 600 (1992), and Deffenbaugh Industries v. Angus, 39 Ark. App. 93, 837 S.W.2d 297 (1992), but the claimant clearly prevailed in this court in those cases and the dissenting opinion in those cases simply took the position that since review by the Arkansas Supreme Court had been granted in each case, the allowance of attorney\u2019s fee for prevailing on appeal should wait until the supreme court rendered its decision.\nWe also allowed a fee to the appellee-claimant in Gina Marie Farms v. Jones, 28 Ark. App. 90, 770 S.W.2d 680 (1989). The employer had appealed in that case and we dismissed the appeal because there was no final, appealable order in the case, but we allowed a fee to counsel for the appellee-claimant because \u201cthe appellee has in fact prevailed as the appeal has been dismissed.\u201d 28 Ark. App. at 97, 770 S.W.2d at 684. In the instant case, the claimant was denied permanent disability by the Commission. He appealed to this court, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration. Here, as in Gina Marie Farms, the claimant \u201chas in fact prevailed\u201d in this court. Therefore, we allow appellant\u2019s attorney the maximum fee of $500.00 to be paid as provided in Ark. Code Ann \u00a7 11-9-715 (1987).\nThe appellant has also asked for costs under Rule 24 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. These costs are taxed by the Clerk of the courts and should have been set out in a mandate issued by the clerk. Any problem in that regard will be addressed if a motion is filed setting out the details of the problem.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Don P. Chaney, for appellant.",
      "Wendell Griffin, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William CROW v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY\nCA 91-479\n852 S.W.2d 334\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered April 21, 1993\nDon P. Chaney, for appellant.\nWendell Griffin, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0225-01",
  "first_page_order": 249,
  "last_page_order": 250
}