{
  "id": 6136792,
  "name": "Susan Marie MITCHELL v. Timothy Gene MITCHELL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mitchell v. Mitchell",
  "decision_date": "2007-02-14",
  "docket_number": "CA 06-578",
  "first_page": "47",
  "last_page": "47",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "98 Ark. App. 47"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "249 S.W.3d 847"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "335 Ark. 352",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        862763
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "353"
        },
        {
          "page": "264"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/335/0352-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 108,
    "char_count": 921,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5223439667718079
    },
    "sha256": "55c3293a020a3996bae898a0e7a61845cc4acccb0e7a98b7897c933d93f20f5a",
    "simhash": "1:dd499e65e4d76738",
    "word_count": 153
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:09:49.949226+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Susan Marie MITCHELL v. Timothy Gene MITCHELL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nSusan Marie Mitchell appeals the circuit court\u2019s December 2005 order on various post-divorce disputes. We dismiss her appeal without prejudice for lack of an appealable order. In its order, the circuit court reserved a ruling on whether Timothy Gene Mitchell owed child support based on a stock option he allegedly received. Because the order did not resolve all the disputed issues, and the circuit court did not certify it pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the order is not final and we lack jurisdiction to review it. Ark. R. App. P. - Civ. 2(a); Hambay v. Williams, 335 Ark. 352, 353, 980 S.W.2d 263, 264 (1998).\nDismissed without prejudice.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Peel Law Firm, by: Jennifer L. Modersohn, for appellant.",
      "Laws & Murdoch, P.A., by: Allen Laws, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Susan Marie MITCHELL v. Timothy Gene MITCHELL\nCA 06-578\n249 S.W.3d 847\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 14, 2007\nPeel Law Firm, by: Jennifer L. Modersohn, for appellant.\nLaws & Murdoch, P.A., by: Allen Laws, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0047-01",
  "first_page_order": 77,
  "last_page_order": 77
}