{
  "id": 1672615,
  "name": "Cecil L. WOOLSEY v. ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Woolsey v. Arkansas Real Estate Commission",
  "decision_date": "1978-05-01",
  "docket_number": "77-347",
  "first_page": "348",
  "last_page": "350",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "263 Ark. 348"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "565 S.W.2d 22"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "260 Ark. 677",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1616722
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/260/0677-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 2539,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.906,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.501330503306808e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6657106263724256
    },
    "sha256": "255e5c2f223b58bc302fe8ace3014f9b25ec4ae3e379908787e4ba823d56c7ba",
    "simhash": "1:60cfe17d2def1f8f",
    "word_count": 418
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:12:30.639178+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Hour, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Cecil L. WOOLSEY v. ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nIn 1977 the Arkansas Real Estate Commission, after notice and a hearing, revoked the appellant Woolsey\u2019s license as a real estate broker, for cause. Woolsey, in seeking review in the Pulaski Circuit Court, asserted as conclusions of law various statutory grounds for a reversal of the Commission\u2019s decision, such as that the Commission \u201cexceeded its statutory authority,\u201d that the decision \u201cwas made upon unlawful procedure,\u201d that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence of record, and that the decision \u201cis otherwise affected by error of law.\u201d See \u00a7 13 of the Administrative Procedure Act; Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 5-713 (h) (Repl. 1976).\nAfter the record was lodged in the circuit court, counsel for the Commission asked for an early determination of the case, because the revocation of Woolsey\u2019s license had been temporarily stayed by the circuit court. The circuit judge promptly reviewed the complete record, found that the Commission\u2019s action was supported by \u201cvery substantial evidence,\u201d and notified the attorneys that the Commission\u2019s decision was affirmed. Some 10 days later Woolsey\u2019s attorneys sent a letter to the circuit judge requesting a hearing and expressing a desire to present additional testimony to the court. Those requests were denied, and this appeal followed.\nWe see no error. The testimony heard by the Commission has not been abstracted; so we must assume that the circuit court was correct in finding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence. Woolsey was not entitled to present additional evidence to the circuit court, because he failed to make the required statutory showing that the proposed evidence (the nature of which has not even been suggested) was material and that there were good reasons for his failure to present it to the Commission. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 5-713 (f). Finally, as in Bank of Glenwood v. Ark. State Banking Board, 260 Ark. 677, 543 S.W. 2d 761 (1976), we will not remand the cause to the circuit court merely to allow Woolsey to present an oral argument or to submit a brief there. The only issues are questions of law, with respect to which Woolsey has had a full opportunity to present his arguments to this court.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree.\nHarris, C.J., and Fogleman and Hour, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Tommy H. Russell and Don E. Tomlinson, for appellant.",
      "Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Dave Greenbaum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Cecil L. WOOLSEY v. ARKANSAS REAL ESTATE COMMISSION et al\n77-347\n565 S.W. 2d 22\nOpinion delivered May 1, 1978\n(Division I)\nTommy H. Russell and Don E. Tomlinson, for appellant.\nBill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Dave Greenbaum, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0348-01",
  "first_page_order": 374,
  "last_page_order": 376
}