{
  "id": 1619299,
  "name": "Virgil WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. State",
  "decision_date": "1976-01-26",
  "docket_number": "75-208",
  "first_page": "157",
  "last_page": "157",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "259 Ark. 157"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 111,
    "char_count": 1211,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.895,
    "sha256": "a6cfb89d753fa411f2782b935e33456a0b590dcfdcd0e4bc9b2102a9eceb965a",
    "simhash": "1:bd6a05c979020e6b",
    "word_count": 207
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:48:09.193956+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Virgil WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM\nAppellant asks this Court to waive the page limitation on printing requirements as set forth in our Supreme Court Rule No. 11(f), and also that, pursuant to 11(g), the Attorney General be required to print the briefs since appellant is an indigent represented by the public defender. The motion states that in the present case the abstract and brief together exceed the 40 page limitation for printing as set out in the Supreme Court Rule No. 11 (F).\nAppellant misinterprets the rule with respect to page limitation. The 40 page restriction applies to the brief only and not to the abstract and brief. The pertinent portion of the rule reads as follows:\nThe appellant\u2019s brief in chief, before its printing, shall not exceed 40 doublespaced typewritten pages, with a similar 10-page limit upon the reply brief, except that if either limitation is shown to be too stringent in a particular case it may be waived by the Court on motion. (Emphasis added)\nAccordingly, appellant\u2019s motion with respect to the brief limitation is denied without prejudice to his right to renew the motion if deemed necessary.\nMotion granted as to Rule No. 11(g).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Virgil WILLIAMS v. STATE of Arkansas\n75-208\nJanuary 26, 1976"
  },
  "file_name": "0157-01",
  "first_page_order": 187,
  "last_page_order": 187
}