{
  "id": 1688368,
  "name": "Garrison v. City of Alpena",
  "name_abbreviation": "Garrison v. City of Alpena",
  "decision_date": "1961-11-13",
  "docket_number": "5028",
  "first_page": "170",
  "last_page": "172",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "234 Ark. 170"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "350 S.W.2d 690"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "197 Ark. 91",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718232
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/197/0091-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 Ark. 792",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1660120
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/220/0792-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "191 S. W. 405",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "127 Ark. 38",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1550249
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/127/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 Ark. 660",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1705463
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/227/0660-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 263,
    "char_count": 3335,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.49,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3608438240779086e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6354914900444003
    },
    "sha256": "649ad493e5f7f204cce13f82613fdab8868afc4dae783c34c46f31c27e733057",
    "simhash": "1:5dbc2ec400427b12",
    "word_count": 555
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:15:30.076044+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Bohlinger, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Garrison v. City of Alpena."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jim Johnson, Associate Justice.\nThis is an appeal from a traffic violation conviction.\nAppellant, Bay Garrison, was charged in Mayor\u2019s Court with the violation of a City Ordinance which made it a misdemeanor to run a stop-go light signal which was located at the intersection of U. S. Highway No. 62 and Center Street in Alpena. Appellant was found guilty of the violation in Mayor\u2019s Court and prosecuted an appeal to the Boone Circuit Court. The case was there tried de novo before a jury which found appellant guilty of violating the City Ordinance and assessed his fine at ten dollars plus court costs. From such conviction comes this appeal.\nFor reversal appellant relies upon twelve points, most of which question the authority of the City of Alpena to regulate the traffic on Highway 62 within the city limits by the use of the signal device here used. Appellant relies upon \u00a7\u00a7 75-502, 75-503, 75-505, Ark. Stats., and cites Arkansas Highway Commission v. City of Little Rock, 227 Ark. 660, 300 S. W. 2d 929, to support his contentions. We agree with appellant that the sections of Arkansas Statutes relied upon give the direction and control of traffic control devices located on state highways to the State Highway Commission. We further agree with appellant that Arkansas Highway Commission v. City of Little Bock, supra, stands for this proposition. Giving consideration to appellant\u2019s offer of proof, we would probably further agree with his contention on this point in the instant action if he were the State Highway Commission but such is not the case. Section 75-503 (a), Ark. Stats., is as follows:\n\u201cLocal authorities, in their respective jurisdictions, shall place and maintain such traffic-control devices upon Highways under their jurisdiction as they may deem necessary to indicate and carry out the provisions of this Act or local traffic Ordinances or to regulate, warn or guide traffic. All such traffic control devices hereafter erected shall conform to the State Manual and Specifications.\u201d\nFollowing the above legislative enactment, we are impelled to the conclusion that a city has the authority to pass local traffic ordinances to regulate, warn or guide traffic. See: Pierce Oil Corp., v. Hope, 127 Ark. 38, 191 S. W. 405; Goldman Co. Inc., v. City of North Little Rock, 220 Ark. 792, 249 S. W. 2d 961; Ft. Smith v. Van Zandt, 197 Ark. 91, 122 S. W. 2d 187. The question as to whether traffic control devices placed or erected by a city to carry out traffic ordinances conforms to \u201cthe State Manual and Specifications\u201d is a matter which could properly be brought up by the State Highway Commission and not, as here, by a person convicted of violating a valid traffic ordinance. See: Arkansas Highway Commission v. City of Little Rock, supra.\nWe have carefully examined the other points urged for reversal and find them to be without merit. As stated above, this is an appeal from a jury verdict. Four reputable business men of the City of Alpena testified that appellant ran the stop light without stopping. This evidence is substantial, therefore, following our substantial evidence rule, the judgment is accordingly affirmed.\nBohlinger, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jim Johnson, Associate Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Len Jones, for appellant.",
      "Virgil D. Willis, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Garrison v. City of Alpena.\n5028\n350 S. W. 2d 690\nOpinion delivered November 13, 1961.\nLen Jones, for appellant.\nVirgil D. Willis, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0170-01",
  "first_page_order": 192,
  "last_page_order": 194
}