{
  "id": 6141055,
  "name": "NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Lousene LIPSMEYER, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "North Little Rock School District v. Lipsmeyer",
  "decision_date": "2004-09-15",
  "docket_number": "CA 04-376",
  "first_page": "335",
  "last_page": "336",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "87 Ark. App. 335"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "191 S.W.3d 550"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 206,
    "char_count": 3309,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.732,
    "sha256": "4a85bf8e2ebffbdebebaaf1dc22797830f634024b43ad7bfb7f16717e39321a9",
    "simhash": "1:f292cf94cd6e3442",
    "word_count": 565
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:54:56.491359+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Stroud, C.J., Pittman, Vaught, and Crabtree, JJ., join in this concurring opinion."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Lousene LIPSMEYER, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellees\u2019 motion to strike appellant\u2019s abstract and brief and motion to dismiss appeal is denied. Appellees\u2019 brief is due in thirty days.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      },
      {
        "text": "Sam Bird, Judge,\nconcurring. Although I agree with the decision of this court to deny appellant\u2019s motion to strike appellant\u2019s brief and dismiss this appeal, I do so only because it appears that appellant has relied to its detriment on a practice of the clerk of this court of granting informal, unauthorized extensions of time for parties to file briefs.\nFrom a review of the pleadings, correspondence, and other matters in the clerk\u2019s file, it appears that appellant timely filed its record on April 8, 2004. Pursuant to Ark. S. Ct. R. 4-4(a), the clerk issued its \u201cNotice of Filing of Appeal\u201d in which appellant was informed that its brief was due for filing within forty days, which would have made it due not later than May 18, 2004. No brief was tendered for filing by that date.\nOn June 11, 2004, appellant filed a motion for leave to file a belated abstract and brief, arguing that it had not received the clerk\u2019s notice of the briefs due date. Appellee responded with a motion to dismiss the appeal. On June 30, 2004, this court denied appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss, granted appellant\u2019s motion to file its late brief, and ordered that appellant\u2019s brief was due on July 15, 2004.\nOn July 14, 2004, acting pursuant to his authority under Ark. S. Ct. R. 4 \u2014 4(f)(1), the clerk granted to appellant a seven-day extension in which to file its brief, making it due-not later than July 22, 2004. On July 22 appellant tendered its brief to the clerk for filing, but the clerk refused to file it because the brief s index to the addendum was defective. However, the clerk granted appellant an additional seven-day extension in which to correct the indexing defect, an extension not provided for under the supreme court\u2019s rules. On July 23, appellant tendered its corrected brief, which was accepted by the clerk and filed.\nOn July 26, 2004, appellee filed its present motion, arguing that the clerk was without authority to grant the second seven-day extension that it granted on July 22, and urging us to strike the untimely brief and dismiss the appeal. I agree with appellant\u2019s argument that the clerk was without authority to grant the second seven-day extension. However, it is apparently a common and longstanding practice in the clerk\u2019s office to grant such unauthorized extensions for the purpose of permitting parties to correct \u201ctechnical deficiencies\u201d in briefs that are timely tendered, though not accepted, for filing. I believe that, in the absence of another motion by appellant for leave to file a belated brief, application of the supreme court\u2019s rules would be grounds for this court to grant appellee\u2019s motion and dismiss this appeal. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-4(f)(l); 4-5. But to do so in this case, without notice to the bar that the clerk\u2019s longstanding practice is not authorized by the supreme court\u2019s rules, would be unjust. Therefore, I join in the decision to deny appellee\u2019s motion in this case.\nStroud, C.J., Pittman, Vaught, and Crabtree, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.",
        "type": "concurrence",
        "author": "Sam Bird, Judge,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. Lousene LIPSMEYER, et al.\nCA 04-376\n191 S.W.3d 550\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 15, 2004"
  },
  "file_name": "0335-01",
  "first_page_order": 359,
  "last_page_order": 360
}