{
  "id": 1730727,
  "name": "Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.",
  "decision_date": "1965-03-08",
  "docket_number": "5-3454",
  "first_page": "141",
  "last_page": "142",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "239 Ark. 141"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "387 S.W.2d 605"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "222 Ark. 804",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1653072
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/222/0804-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 Ark. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1688402
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/234/0181-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 133,
    "char_count": 1246,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.51,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.581083716417217e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9253624439108226
    },
    "sha256": "ab6a375bcbbccc33205e2029f19b6e9180d6c55c793e8af8e3ea9d5a1e5e2630",
    "simhash": "1:072c52e165a6a1e8",
    "word_count": 219
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:55:14.179779+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Associate Justice.\nThe appellant brought this action to enjoin the appellee from using his property in its watershed construction project. The chancellor sustained appellee\u2019s plea of res judicata, holding that the same issue between the same parties was previously before this court in Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 234 Ark. 181, 351 S. W. 2d 142. On appeal we do not reach the merits of the case since there is a failure by appellant to comply with the requirements of Rule 9 (d) of this court.\nThe abstract cannot be said to be a condensation or abridgment of the record as required since it contains a copy in full or is a mere reproduction of the entire transcript. Sellers v. Harvey, 222 Ark. 804, 263 S. W. 2d 86. A considerable part of the matter reproduced is not material to the issue raised nor necessary to an understanding thereof. The object sought by Rule 9(d) is to confine the abstract to only that part of the record as is necessary to give this court a clear understanding of the issue or issues presented.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Associate Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "E. V. Trimbmle, for appellant.",
      "Smith, Williams, Friday & Bowen, By: Ben Allen, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.\n5-3454\n387 S. W. 2d 605\nOpinion delivered March 8, 1965.\nE. V. Trimbmle, for appellant.\nSmith, Williams, Friday & Bowen, By: Ben Allen, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0141-01",
  "first_page_order": 169,
  "last_page_order": 170
}