{
  "id": 1627385,
  "name": "J. C. \"Jimmy\" KNABE et al v. Carroll BALL et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Knabe v. Ball",
  "decision_date": "1972-10-23",
  "docket_number": "5-6087",
  "first_page": "351",
  "last_page": "351",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "253 Ark. 351"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "485 S.W.2d 745"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "252 Ark. 1077",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1629940
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/252/1077-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "486 S.W. 2d 7",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1627462
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/253/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "252 Ark. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 99,
    "char_count": 827,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.825,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3647898004864376
    },
    "sha256": "c0de0680cf70fe88832b08bcedeee260fea94ba293b9ad8a48874a2f7aeacedb",
    "simhash": "1:5b7d54846b6ed251",
    "word_count": 141
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:30.788798+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. C. \"Jimmy\" KNABE et al v. Carroll BALL et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM\nThe decree is affirmed for failure of appellants to comply with Rule 9 of the rules of this court. Even though appellees, after pointing out appellants\u2019 noncompliance, supplied many of the deficiencies by supplementing the abstract of oral testimony and setting out the chancellor\u2019s findings of fact, we are still unable to understand the testimony without any abstract of any of the pleadings, the court\u2019s decree, or, most important of all, a plat and five or six photographic exhibits without which the testimony is not understandable. See Baker v. Trotter, 252 Ark. 247, 486 S.W. 2d 7; Reliable Finance Co. v. Rhodes, 252 Ark. 1077, 483 S.W. 2d 187.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Art Givens, for appellants.",
      "E. H. Herrod, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. C. \"Jimmy\" KNABE et al v. Carroll BALL et al\n5-6087\n485 S.W. 2d 745\nOpinion delivered October 23, 1972\nArt Givens, for appellants.\nE. H. Herrod, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0351-01",
  "first_page_order": 389,
  "last_page_order": 389
}