{
  "id": 1737918,
  "name": "Pyramid Life Ins. Co. v. Hamilton",
  "name_abbreviation": "Pyramid Life Ins. v. Hamilton",
  "decision_date": "1964-03-16",
  "docket_number": "5-3228",
  "first_page": "797",
  "last_page": "798",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "237 Ark. 797"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "376 S.W.2d 555"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "368 S. W. 2d 265",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10159651,
        1681348
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/368/0265-01",
        "/ark/236/0740-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 Ark. 740",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1681348
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/236/0740-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 180,
    "char_count": 1897,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.514,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4548587003634884e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8045106104641622
    },
    "sha256": "a13665777babab6f803bd8fcc059d44da6fa8f1979ce568d8ee17bf347688dd7",
    "simhash": "1:033e10e7c1c6a108",
    "word_count": 314
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:17:18.904164+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Pyramid Life Ins. Co. v. Hamilton."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice.\nThis appeal involves a judgment entered by the Union County Circuit Court against appellant, Pyramid Life Insurance Company, and in favor of Ralph L. Hamilton, appellee, in the amount of $110.75. The sole question on direct appeal is whether the company was liable for sick benefits under a policy that it had issued to Hamilton. The trial court, sitting as a jury, held against appellant, and from the judgment so entered comes this appeal. Appellee cross appeals, contending that the attorney\u2019s fee awarded counsel for Hamilton was insufficient.\nWe are unable to consider this appeal on its merits since Rule 9 (d) has not been complied with. On numerous occasions, this court has stated that we are not required to explore the transcript, but rather, that the duty rests upon an appellant to furnish this court such an abridgment of the record as will enable us to understand the matters presented. See Vire v. Vire. 236 Ark. 740, 368 S. W. 2d 265, and cases cited therein.\nIn the present case, there is no abstract of the judgment, pleadings, or testimony, and only one section of the policy is mentioned, this appearing in appellant\u2019s statement of. the case. The transcript covers over 80 pages, and in situations of this kind, we have heretofore uniformly affirmed the trial court\u2019s decree or judgment.\nAppellee, on cross-appeal, asserts that the fee allowed appellee\u2019s attorney in trial court ($100.00) was inadequate. Considering the amount of the judgment rendered, we cannot say that the trial court was in error in reaching this figure. For services rendered on this appeal, we feel that an additional $100.00 should be allowed.\nIt is so ordered.\nAffirmed on both direct and cross-appeal.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Carleton Harris, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ben D. Lindsey, for appellant.",
      "Shackleford S Shackleford, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Pyramid Life Ins. Co. v. Hamilton.\n5-3228\n376 S. W. 2d 555\nOpinion delivered March 16, 1964.\nBen D. Lindsey, for appellant.\nShackleford S Shackleford, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0797-01",
  "first_page_order": 819,
  "last_page_order": 820
}