{
  "id": 1624114,
  "name": "Billy A. PUTERBAUGH v. Fern PUTERBAUGH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Puterbaugh v. Puterbaugh",
  "decision_date": "1973-03-12",
  "docket_number": "5-6213",
  "first_page": "60",
  "last_page": "61",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "254 Ark. 61"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "491 S.W.2d 386"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "99 S.W. 2d 571",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "193 Ark. 207",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1411175
      ],
      "year": 1936,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/193/0207-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 169,
    "char_count": 1687,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.794,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.061320756538315556
    },
    "sha256": "0ced40dc073821c739f6cdeb071e6b1989daba71e804ac57a38adb9092187543",
    "simhash": "1:a27d9a9a442a092b",
    "word_count": 285
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:26:13.512056+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "George Rose Smith, J., concur.",
      "Harris, C. J. and Holt, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Billy A. PUTERBAUGH v. Fern PUTERBAUGH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nAppellant Billy A. Puterbaugh contends that an order for temporary support, maintenance and attorney\u2019s fees for his wife, appellee Fern Puterbaugh, should have been dismissed because his wife was not a resident of Pulaski County at the time she filed her complaint on August 16, 1972.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-1204 (Repl. 1962), provides that divorce proceedings shall be in the county where the complainant resides.\nThis record comes to us only upon the testimony of appellee to the \u00e9ffect that she intends to reside and be a resident of Pulaski County. Appellant relies upon McLaughlin v. McLaughlin, 193 Ark. 207, 99 S.W. 2d 571 (1936), to support his position that the Pulaski Chancery Court had no jurisdiction. Here, however, the proof on the part of appellee shows that she lived and worked as a legal secretary in Little Rock from 1962 to 1967, shortly before her marriage in February 1968. Also that she was without funds with which to support herself at the time of separation and that she came to Little Rock to seek employment. In the McLaughlin case, the proof was to the effect that the wife moved to Little Rock for the sole purpose of filing for a divorce.\nFrom a review of the record upon appellee\u2019s testimony alone, we cannot say that the chancellor\u2019s ruling is contrary to a preponderance of the evidence.\nAffirmed.\nGeorge Rose Smith, J., concur.\nHarris, C. J. and Holt, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Smith, Williams, Friday, Eldridge ir Clark, by: Frederick S. Ussery, Ronnie A. Phillips and L. Weens Trussell, for appellant.",
      "Jack L. Lessenberry, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Billy A. PUTERBAUGH v. Fern PUTERBAUGH\n5-6213\n491 S.W. 2d 386\nOpinion delivered March 12, 1973\nSmith, Williams, Friday, Eldridge ir Clark, by: Frederick S. Ussery, Ronnie A. Phillips and L. Weens Trussell, for appellant.\nJack L. Lessenberry, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0060-01",
  "first_page_order": 81,
  "last_page_order": 82
}