{
  "id": 1756243,
  "name": "Mark WOOTEN v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor, and ARKANSAS ALUMINUM ALLOYS, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wooten v. Daniels",
  "decision_date": "1980-11-12",
  "docket_number": "E 80-118",
  "first_page": "131",
  "last_page": "131",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "271 Ark. 131"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "607 S.W.2d 96"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 116,
    "char_count": 1052,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.688,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.618960931806326e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8211590714362111
    },
    "sha256": "a336f71b7fe6689ac351d680d26a2a6389236f7a3d9e2dcc5959fa2f70935ebc",
    "simhash": "1:5818bf18be99e0dd",
    "word_count": 181
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:22:30.070289+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mark WOOTEN v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor, and ARKANSAS ALUMINUM ALLOYS, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam\nThis case was erroneously placed on our docket as an appeal. The only document filed with this court is a letter from the father of the claimant Mark Wooten requesting an extension of the deadline for filing a petition for review with this court. Thus, there has been no appeal in this case.\nWe deny the request for extension for two reasons. First, we have no authority to extend the 15-day deadline for filing petition for review as prescribed in Ark. Stat. Ann., \u00a7 81-1107(d)(7)\"\"(Supp. 1979)- Secondly, the o'nly evidence presented by claimant\u2019s father with respect to his authority to act for the claimant was a power of attorney giving him authority to purchase and sell personal property on behalf of the claimant. It did not authorize him to represent the claimant in the manner purported in the letter.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, pro se.",
      "Herrn Northcutt, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mark WOOTEN v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor, and ARKANSAS ALUMINUM ALLOYS, INC.\nE 80-118\n607 S.W. 2d 96\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 12, 1980\nAppellant, pro se.\nHerrn Northcutt, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0131-01",
  "first_page_order": 163,
  "last_page_order": 163
}