{
  "id": 1636922,
  "name": "F. F. MOON v. THE SPERRY AND HUTCHINSON CO., a Corporation",
  "name_abbreviation": "Moon v. Sperry & Hutchinson Co.",
  "decision_date": "1971-04-12",
  "docket_number": "5-5507",
  "first_page": "453",
  "last_page": "456",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "250 Ark. 453"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "465 S.W.2d 330"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "21 ALR 2d 643",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R. 2d",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "129 S. W. 85",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1910,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "95 Ark. 227",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1543584
      ],
      "year": 1910,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/95/0227-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 S. W. 2d 89",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10154553,
        1681318
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/368/0089-01",
        "/ark/236/0713-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "236 Ark. 713",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1681318
      ],
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/236/0713-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 422,
    "char_count": 5632,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.836,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.584139401474043e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4891250416530076
    },
    "sha256": "1550a4b97c51ad0c5ea77c6688865c1d280f3e7bac9a4bdee88f2c1d9ba23eac",
    "simhash": "1:04a6ebc71cf08f7b",
    "word_count": 963
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:35:57.384009+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Byrd, J., concurs."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "F. F. MOON v. THE SPERRY AND HUTCHINSON CO., a Corporation"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nAppellant instituted this action against the appellee, owner of the S & H Green Stamp Center, for false imprisonment and detention. The trial court granted a motion for summary judgment against appellant and he appeals. For reversal appellant contends that the trial court erred because there were genuine issues of fact to be resolved by a jury.\nAppellant entered the S & H Green Stamp Center to visit one of the employees who happened to be absent. An employee of appellee, Mrs. Lou Coil, thought she saw the handle of a pistol protruding from appellant\u2019s pocket while appellant was in the store, acting in a manner that aroused her suspicion. The appellant was a stranger to Mrs. Coil. Mrs. Coil left the store and called the police. Two officers were directed to the Center where they were met outside the building by Mrs. Coil who accompanied them into the store and identified appellant.\nThere is a conflict of testimony as to the events which occurred after the police arrived. According to the evidence adduced by appellee, the officers approached appellant and asked if he had a gun. Appellant denied possession by saying: \u201cI do not, search me,\u201d and he put both hands up. The officer then \u201cpatted\u201d the outside of appellant\u2019s clothing and determined that appellant was not armed. Appellant was not further detained nor was an additional search conducted. According to appellant\u2019s evidence, the police entered the store and approached him after Mrs. Coil had identified him as the man with a gun. After appellant had denied having a gun in his possession, the police asked him what he had in his hand, whereupon he showed them a car key in a leather case and told them he was a longtime local resident. The officers then stated: \u201cWell, we have orders to arrest you and search you, put up your hands.\u201d Appellant replied: \u201cOkay, if you find anything why give me half of it please.\u201d He stated the occurrence \u201ckind of shocked me.\u201d As to the police officers\u2019 conduct during the investigation, appellant testified as follows: \u201cI held my hands up and they went all over me. I wouldn\u2019t say whether they ran their hands in my pockets or out.\u201d Afterwards he left the store.\nThe only issue presented here is whether the trial judge acted properly in holding, as a matter of law, that appellee\u2019s employee\u2019s actions were insufficient to constitute false imprisonment.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 29-211 (Repl. 1962) provides that a summary judgment shall be rendered if the pleading and proof on file show \u201cthat there is no genuine issue to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.\u201d Under the provisions of this statute, any evidence submitted with the motion must be viewed in the light most favorable to the party resisting the motion, with all doubts and inferences being resolved against the moving party. Russell v. City of Rogers, 236 Ark. 713, 368 S. W. 2d 89 (1963). In support of his contention that a genuine issue of material fact did exist as to whether appellee\u2019s employee did falsely arrest and detain him, appellant cites Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1601 (Repl. 1964) which defines false imprisonment as \u201cthe unlawful violation of the personal liberty of another, and consists in confinement or detention without sufficient legal authority.\u201d It appears that appellee\u2019s employee\u2019s activities were confined to notifying the police and identification of appellant. The principle of law announced by this court in McIntosh v. Bullard, Earnheart & Magness, 95 Ark. 227, 129 S. W. 85 (1910) is: \u201cWhere a person does no more than to give information by affidavit to an officer relative to a matter over which he has jurisdiction, such person is not liable for a trespass for false imprisonment for the acts done under a warrant which the officer issues on said charge.\u201d The above mentioned rule was made in conjunction with an action for illegal arrest and false imprisonment, a fortiori, we think it controls in the case at bar.\nThis rule is in accord with the general rule laid down in 22 Am. Jur., False Imprisonment, \u00a7 30, p. 371, which reads as follows: \u201cTo be liable in an action for false imprisonment, one must have personally and actively participated therein directly or by indirect procurement.\u201d 32 Am. Jur. 2d, False Imprisonment, \u00a7 35, p. 99, sets out what constitutes direction or investigation as follows: \u201cIn short, the arrest by the officer must be so induced or instigated by the defendant that the act of arrest is made by the officer, not of his own volition, but to carry out the request of the defendant. Merely summoning an officer for protection or to keep the peace, or to deal with a person accused of crime, is not sufficient participation to impose liability, as a general rule.\u201d To the same effect, see Restatement, Second, Torts, \u00a7 45A. Even though Mrs. Coil was mistaken in her belief that appellant was carrying a gun, her actions of calling the police and identifying appellant are insufficient acts, in the circumstances, to constitute direct or indir\u00e9ct procurement of the alleged detention. 21 ALR 2d 643\u2014717 [ALR 2d Later Case Service 3, \u00a7\u00a7 23, 27]. As we view this record, there is no genuine issue of a material fact. When the evidence is considered most favorably to appellant, it merely shows that appellant was detained only by the police for a period of time sufficient to conduct a limited investigation by them.\nAffirmed.\nByrd, J., concurs.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Brockman, Brockman if Gunti, for appellant.",
      "Warren if Bullion, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "F. F. MOON v. THE SPERRY AND HUTCHINSON CO., a Corporation\n5-5507\n465 S. W. 2d 330\nOpinion delivered April 12, 1971\nBrockman, Brockman if Gunti, for appellant.\nWarren if Bullion, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0453-01",
  "first_page_order": 483,
  "last_page_order": 486
}