{
  "id": 8720334,
  "name": "J. N. McKNIGHT v. Charles NEWKIRK",
  "name_abbreviation": "McKnight v. Newkirk",
  "decision_date": "1974-04-01",
  "docket_number": "73-283",
  "first_page": "342",
  "last_page": "343",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "256 Ark. 342"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "507 S.W.2d 98"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "253 Ark. 583",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1627336
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1972,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/253/0583-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 144,
    "char_count": 1542,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.851,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.380125665320789e-08,
      "percentile": 0.39215317186446
    },
    "sha256": "679973203d98ff56cb4bed3b037f93c34616ccf404e912e01c39332643a2b38c",
    "simhash": "1:1f7d55b25cf6df02",
    "word_count": 263
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:44:14.527021+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J. N. McKNIGHT v. Charles NEWKIRK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Conley Byrd, Justice.\nThe issue here is whether a person prosecuted in a Mayor\u2019s court for violation of a municipal ordinance is entitled to take a change of venue under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 22-725 (Repl. 1962), to a municipal court. Appellee Charles Newkirk, who was charged in the mayor\u2019s court of West Fork, Arkansas, with violation of a zoning ordinance, obtained a writ of mandamus in the circuit court to compel appellant, J. N. McKnight, mayor of West Fork, to transfer the venue to the Fayetteville Municipal Court. We agree with appellant that the trial court erroneously interpreted the statute.\nA reading of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 22-725, supra, will show that a change of venue is required only when a civil or criminal case is brought before a justice of the peace. In Russell v. Miller, 253 Ark. 583, 487 S.W. 2d 617 (1972), we construed this statute as being applicable to a mayor\u2019s court when it was exercising the jurisdiction of a justice of the peace. However Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 43-1405 (Repl. 1964), gives mayor courts exclusive jurisdiction \u201c. . .of all prosecutions and actions for infractions of the by-laws or ordinances of the city or town in which they are located. . .\u201d. Consequently, it follows that the writ of mandamus issued by the trial court must be set aside.\nReversed and remanded.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Conley Byrd, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Murphy, Carlisle & Taylor, by: Robert R. White, for appellant.",
      "Estes, Storey & Estes, by: William A. Storey and Peter G. Estes, Jr, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J. N. McKNIGHT v. Charles NEWKIRK\n73-283\n507 S.W. 2d 98\nOpinion delivered April 1, 1974\nMurphy, Carlisle & Taylor, by: Robert R. White, for appellant.\nEstes, Storey & Estes, by: William A. Storey and Peter G. Estes, Jr, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0342-01",
  "first_page_order": 378,
  "last_page_order": 379
}