{
  "id": 8720396,
  "name": "Morris v. Mauney",
  "name_abbreviation": "Morris v. Mauney",
  "decision_date": "1950-05-29",
  "docket_number": "4-9213",
  "first_page": "389",
  "last_page": "389",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "217 Ark. 389"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "230 S.W.2d 37"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "195 S. W. 354",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 Ark. 217",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1580376
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/129/0217-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "221 S. W. 178",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "143 Ark. 463",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1589441
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/143/0463-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 109,
    "char_count": 974,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.538,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20851833446660403
    },
    "sha256": "621935e55e18aa003053f2196cf72837475979ea5432dc27d248a5d5057d6cae",
    "simhash": "1:5a73e4347b8cfb58",
    "word_count": 182
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:48:24.265381+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Morris v. Mauney."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nOn May 1, 1950, we granted appellant until May 8, 1950, to perfect Ms abstract in response to appellee\u2019s motion to affirm for failure to comply with Rule 9 of tMs court. Neither the original abstract and brief nor the amendment filed by appellant on May 8, 1950, makes any reference to a motion for a new trial. Under Rule 9 a judgment will be affirmed unless appellant\u2019s brief shows that a motion for new trial was filed and overruled. Van Hoozer v. Hendricks, 143 Ark. 463, 221 S. W. 178.\nIt is also well settled that only errors apparent on the face of the record will be considered where there is no motion for a new trial. Miller v. Kansas City Southern Ry. Co., 129 Ark. 217, 195 S. W. 354.\nNo error appears on the face of the record in the instant case and the judgment is accordingly affirmed for failure to comply with Rule 9.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Howard Stone, for appellant.",
      "Tom Kidd, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Morris v. Mauney.\n4-9213\n230 S. W. 2d 37\nOpinion delivered May 29, 1950.\nHoward Stone, for appellant.\nTom Kidd, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0389-01",
  "first_page_order": 413,
  "last_page_order": 413
}