{
  "id": 1737883,
  "name": "Lofton v. Bryan",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lofton v. Bryan",
  "decision_date": "1963-12-16",
  "docket_number": "5-3049",
  "first_page": "642",
  "last_page": "642",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "237 Ark. 642"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "375 S.W.2d 221"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "217 Ark. 632",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8723085
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/217/0632-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "209 Ark. 630",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1475769
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/209/0630-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "208 F. 2d 549",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        561503
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/208/0549-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 123,
    "char_count": 1486,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.473,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.217296841087021e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5974176486737258
    },
    "sha256": "b3483193dc13deb8ab3f9945b1441fdd6983d7d8e9b16b03fce591e8bc23673e",
    "simhash": "1:faea0c96890ad197",
    "word_count": 259
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:18.904164+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lofton v. Bryan."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Carret\u00f3n Harris, Chief Justice.\nIn the petition for rehearing appellant insists that this case is controlled by Huffstettler v. Lion Oil Company, 208 F. 2d 549. There it was held that the operator of a bulk plant who distributed Lion products to retailers who had contracted with Lion to sell that company\u2019s products, was not an independent contractor, but a subcontractor.\nThe decision in the Lion case was based on Hobbs Western Co. v. Craig, 209 Ark. 630, 192 S. W. 2d 116, and Brothers v. Dierks, 217 Ark. 632, 232 S. W. 2d 646. In the Hobbs Western case it was shown that Hobbs Western was getting out crossties for the Bock Island Bail-road under a contract, and its was therefore held that one Lea, who was in turn getting out ties for Hobbs Western, was a subcontractor, not an independent contractor.\nIn Brothers v. Dierks it was shown that Dierks was getting out timber under a contract with the Federal Government, and therefore, the one that Dierks employed to remove the timber from the government laud was a sub-contractor and not an independent contractor.\nIn the case at bar it is not shown that Dierks had any contract with a third person in connection with the timber, and therefore, it cannot be said that the one who is getting out the timber for Dierks is a subcontractor.\nPetition for re-hearing is denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Carret\u00f3n Harris, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lofton v. Bryan.\n5-3049\n375 S. W. 2d 221\nSupplemental Opinion on rehearing delivered February 3, 1964.\nOriginal opinion delivered December 16, 1963, p. 376."
  },
  "file_name": "0642-01",
  "first_page_order": 664,
  "last_page_order": 664
}