{
  "id": 8725408,
  "name": "Droke v. Rogers",
  "name_abbreviation": "Droke v. Rogers",
  "decision_date": "1946-12-16",
  "docket_number": "4-8026",
  "first_page": "938",
  "last_page": "939",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "210 Ark. 938"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "198 S.W.2d 180"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "207 Ark. 605",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1481834
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/207/0605-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 S. W. 596",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "102 Ark. 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1354042
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/102/0095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "112 S. W. 219",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "87 Ark. 202",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1519181
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/87/0202-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 137,
    "char_count": 1267,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.525,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.5522964274278852e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6750524837548444
    },
    "sha256": "112ccbae0622d6127e308da31176fba20636c4744cbf9b4bcd8aeb1209c3290d",
    "simhash": "1:184bc29f212c518b",
    "word_count": 226
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T23:00:55.346799+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Droke v. Rogers."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "McHaN'by, Justice.\nAppellant says: \u2018 \u2018 This is \u2022 an action to recover broker\u2019s commissions alleged by appel-lee to have been earned on the sale of property of the appellant. We believe the record in this case shows the following to be the evidence given in the case.\u201d He then sets out quite briefly what he says is the effect of the evidence. The pleadings have not been abstracted. The instructions are not set out or abstracted. The verdict and judgment are not set out. The motion for a new trial, if any, and the action of the court thereon, if it did act, are not mentioned in appellant\u2019s abstract and brief.\nSo, at the outset, appellant is met by appellee\u2019s motion to affirm the judgment for noncompliance with Rule IX, which motion must be and is sustained on the authority of numerous cases. See Siloam Springs v. Broyles, 87 Ark. 202, 112 S. W. 219, and the many cases there cited; Queen of Ark. Ins. Co. v. Royal, 102 Ark. 95, 143 S. W. 596; Winn v. Schneider, 207 Ark. 605, 182 S. W. 2d 216.\nAppellee has not supplied the deficiencies in appellant \u2019s abstract, and the judgment is affirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "McHaN'by, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Vernon J. King and E. Newton Ellis, for appellant.",
      "Schoonover & Steimel, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Droke v. Rogers.\n4-8026\n198 S. W. 2d 180\nOpinion delivered December 16, 1946.\nVernon J. King and E. Newton Ellis, for appellant.\nSchoonover & Steimel, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0938-01",
  "first_page_order": 954,
  "last_page_order": 955
}