{
  "id": 6136677,
  "name": "Kenneth GLOVER v. Paula Glover LANGFORD",
  "name_abbreviation": "Glover v. Langford",
  "decision_date": "1995-03-22",
  "docket_number": "CA 94-6",
  "first_page": "30",
  "last_page": "31",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "49 Ark. App. 30"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "894 S.W.2d 959"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "853 S.W.2d 890",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1914664,
        6137217
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/313/0373-01",
        "/ark-app/42/0072-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "313 Ark. 373",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1914664
      ],
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/313/0373-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "40 Ark. App. 196",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139864
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/40/0196-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ark. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1455807
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0328-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 172,
    "char_count": 2159,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.867,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.193306775769424e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5095090485970417
    },
    "sha256": "a16c4a15baf8d6ddc87173c4817a1fac2db7b7ee4ac31904abe1563476c32040",
    "simhash": "1:b0572d6d607c89b1",
    "word_count": 372
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:40:19.098525+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Pittman and Rogers, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Kenneth GLOVER v. Paula Glover LANGFORD"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "James R. Cooper, Judge.\nThe appellant in this chancery case sought an appeal from an order of the Saline County Chancery Court entered June 17, 1993, and from the chancellor\u2019s denial of his motion for new trial filed on June 30, 1993. The appellant\u2019s initial notice of appeal, filed on July 12, 1993, was held to be premature, and thus untimely, by the trial court. Consequently, the appellant filed a second notice of appeal on July 30, 1993, from the trial court\u2019s order of June 17, 1993, \u201cand the failure of the Chancellor to rule on the Plaintiff\u2019s Motion for New Trial within thirty (30) days of the entry of the final order.\u201d Unfortunately, this second notice of appeal was also untimely, and we are constrained to dismiss this appeal.\nThe appellant\u2019s first notice of appeal, filed as it was prior to the disposition of the post-trial motion, was without effect under Ark. R. App. P. 4(c). Under such circumstances, a new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time dated from the entry of the order dealing with the post-trial motion or from the expiration of the thirty days allowed in the absence of a ruling. Lawrence Brothers, Inc. v. R. J. \u201cBob\u201d Jones Excavating Contractor, Inc., 318 Ark. 328, 884 S.W.2d 620 (1994).\nThe appellant\u2019s second notice of appeal was filed exactly thirty days after his post-trial motion for a new trial was filed. The situation is identical to that presented in Kimble v. Gray, 40 Ark. App. 196, 842 S.W.2d 473 (1992), aff\u2019d, 313 Ark. 373, 853 S.W.2d 890 (1993). In that case we held that a trial court retains jurisdiction of a post-trial motion until the end of the thirtieth day. Because a notice of appeal filed before the expiration of the thirty-day period has no effect under Rule 4(c), we held that the notice of appeal, filed on the thirtieth day, was untimely and ineffective.\nAppeal dismissed.\nPittman and Rogers, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "James R. Cooper, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bridewell & Bridewell, by: Laurie A. Bridewell, for appellant.",
      "Paul K. Lancaster, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Kenneth GLOVER v. Paula Glover LANGFORD\nCA 94-6\n894 S.W.2d 959\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered March 22, 1995\n[Rehearing denied April 12, 1995.]\nBridewell & Bridewell, by: Laurie A. Bridewell, for appellant.\nPaul K. Lancaster, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0030-01",
  "first_page_order": 52,
  "last_page_order": 53
}