{
  "id": 6139701,
  "name": "William CROW v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Crow v. Weyerhaeuser Co.",
  "decision_date": "1993-06-23",
  "docket_number": "CA 91-479",
  "first_page": "183",
  "last_page": "184",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "42 Ark. App. 183"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "856 S.W.2d 43"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "41 Ark. App. 225",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6141208
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/41/0225-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "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": 139,
    "char_count": 1581,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.902,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17490749460682842
    },
    "sha256": "d6087aaf4df0cd10fa35655b9a0eaf6871b740cb1c47bf193a2358cea17423db",
    "simhash": "1:632fc746c80acde0",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:37:01.057819+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "William CROW v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellee has filed a motion asking that we - stay the enforcement of the order requiring the payment of an attorney\u2019s fee \u201cuntil appellee has exhausted all judicial review of the issue to which it is entitled.\u201d\nThis motion goes back to an unpublished opinion which we issued in this case on December 23, 1992. In that opinion we remanded this case to the Arkansas Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission for reconsideration in light of an opinion we issued in Keller v. L.A. Darling Fixtures, 40 Ark. App. 94, 845 S.W.2d 15 (1992).\nAfter we remanded the present case, the appellant filed a motion for attorney\u2019s fee, which we granted on April 21, 1993. See Crow v. Weyerhaeuser, 41 Ark. App. 225, 852 S.W.2d 334 (1993). The appellee\u2019s present motion is apparently filed because it thinks our allowance of attorney\u2019s fee would not be final until and unless this case came back from the Commission and we decided for the appellant on the merits of that appeal. This is not the view we have and not what we said in our opinion granting the fee. In that opinion we discussed previous opinions we had issued on this point, and we think our opinion clearly stated that the appellant was allowed an attorney\u2019s fee because he had \u201cin fact prevailed\u201d when we remanded to the Commission.\nMotion denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, by: Wendell L. Griffen and Patricia S. Lewallen, for appellant.",
      "Wright, Chaney & Tucker, by: Benny Tucker, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William CROW v. WEYERHAEUSER COMPANY\nCA 91-479\n856 S.W.2d 43\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered June 23, 1993\nWright, Lindsey & Jennings, by: Wendell L. Griffen and Patricia S. Lewallen, for appellant.\nWright, Chaney & Tucker, by: Benny Tucker, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0183-01",
  "first_page_order": 207,
  "last_page_order": 208
}