{
  "id": 1727520,
  "name": "Graham v. State",
  "name_abbreviation": "Graham v. State",
  "decision_date": "1966-02-21",
  "docket_number": "5178",
  "first_page": "307",
  "last_page": "309",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "240 Ark. 307"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "399 S.W.2d 272"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "239 Ark. 929",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1730538
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/239/0929-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 248,
    "char_count": 3776,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.485,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06495359381956245
    },
    "sha256": "674ac77f2793e6d19923af929bd8ab632d16a2972a7949fd9defbfe0c313d76c",
    "simhash": "1:9787da5ea9bc8d41",
    "word_count": 645
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:11:15.698686+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Johnson, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Graham v. State"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice.\nThe appellant, James Graham, was charged, tried and convicted of selling beer in a dry county (Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 48-803 [Repl. 1964]), and he brings this appeal.\nAppellant insists that when he made the beer sale in Ouachita County on October 8, 1965, he violated no law because, he claims, that at the General Election in 1964 Ouachita County had voted \u201cwet,\u201d and the result of such election is controlling, notwithstanding the. fact that the election was contested. Appellant concedes that what we said in Parker v. Rowan, 239 Ark. 929, 395 S. W. 2d 338, will result in an affirmance here; but we are urged to rescind our holding and language in that case. \"VYe refuse to agree to appellant\u2019s insistence.\nIn Parker v. Rowan, supra, the \u201cWets\u201d brought a suit in the Chancery Court praying for a declaratory judgment to the effect that the result of the 1964 General Election on the Wet-Dry issue in Ouachita County was final, even pending the time that the \u201cDrys\u201d might appeal from the County Court to the Circuit Court. We stated and reiterated the well known rule that equity courts have no power to interfere with election contests, saying:\n\u201cThus, as long as an election contest is pending, the Chancery Court has no jurisdiction to interfere in such controversy. Regardless of whether the proceeding filed hy the Wets in the Ouachita Chancery Court on August 11, 1965 be called a \u2018petition for declaratory judgment,\u2019 \u2018petition for injunction,\u2019 or some other pleading, the net effect is the same: the Chancery Court was being asked to declare that during the time allowed by law for the Drys to appeal to the Circuit Court there was no election contest pending.\u201d\nSuch language brought us to the determinative issue in Parker v. Rowan, supra, as to whether a Wet-Dry election contest could he considered as pending during the time allowed for appeal from the County Court to the Circuit Court; and on that point we said:\n\u201cIn many cases when a judgment is rendered it is considered as final until reversed; but our statute on local option liquor elections establishes an entirely different rule in such cases. Act No. 212 of 1957, as found in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 48-827 (Repl. 1964) says of local option liquor election contests that if the election is contested there is no final determination until \u2018the date of the issuance of the mandate by the court finally determining an election contest.\u2019 This Act No. 212, when fitted into our local option election law in liquor cases, applies to contests by Drys as well as. to contests by Wets. The effect of our said statute is that the statics qico ante in liquor matters will not be changed until the \u2018final determination\u2019 of the \u2022 election contest. The contest of the 1964 local option election in Ouachita 'County has not been finally determined. As we have previously pointed out (and because of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 48-821 [Repl. 1964] and Ark. Stat. Ann. ^ 27-2001 [Repl. 1962]), the Drys have six months from August 6, 1965, to prosecute their appeal in the Circuit Court; and under the plain wording of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 48-827 (Repl. 1964) there has been no \u2018final determination\u2019 because there has been no \u2018issuance of the mandate by the court finally determining an election contest.\u2019 \u201d\nThe quoted language in Parker v. Rowan was used after careful deliberation, and we have no intention of receding from such holding and language.\nAffirmed.\nJohnson, J., dissents.\nIn the present case it is stipulated that the \u201cDrys\u201d have now filed their appeal in the Circuit Court from the County Court order.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Ed. F. McFaddin, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brown, Compton & Prewett, for appellant.",
      "Bruce Bennett, Attorney General; Fletcher Jackson, Asst. Atty. General, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Graham v. State\n5178\n399 S. W. 2d 272\nOpinion delivered February 21, 1966\nBrown, Compton & Prewett, for appellant.\nBruce Bennett, Attorney General; Fletcher Jackson, Asst. Atty. General, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0307-01",
  "first_page_order": 331,
  "last_page_order": 333
}