{
  "id": 1174858,
  "name": "James T. COLLIER v. HOT SPRINGS SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION",
  "name_abbreviation": "Collier v. Hot Springs Savings & Loan Ass'n",
  "decision_date": "1981-03-16",
  "docket_number": "80-202",
  "first_page": "162",
  "last_page": "164",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "272 Ark. 162"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "612 S.W.2d 730"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 794",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756077
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0794-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 113",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672700
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0113-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 678",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1664746
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/265/0678-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 256,
    "char_count": 2958,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.791,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.9913231764827478e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7418050241539178
    },
    "sha256": "071acfd43a3e9403564622a970d075d482d3708b09005d7c360c08f58bd22870",
    "simhash": "1:d76db02e743ffff8",
    "word_count": 481
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:04.069601+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James T. COLLIER v. HOT SPRINGS SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.\nAppellee, Hot Springs Savings & Loan Association, filed suit alleging appellant, James T. Collier, while employed as its vice president, fraudulently converted over $900,000 of appellee\u2019s funds. Based on the pleadings, admissions, and affidavits on file, the circuit court found there remained no genuine issue as to any fact and granted summary judgment from which appellant appeals.\nAppellee served appellant with a request for admissions pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 28-358 (Supp. 1977). Appellant filed a timely motion for an extension of time in which to answer and, then, belatedly filed a response to the request for admissions. Since the circuit court found that appellant\u2019s response was untimely and insufficient, the matters set forth in the request for admissions were deemed admitted.\nAppellant argues that his timely motion for extension was granted under Rule 78, Ark. Rules of Civ. Proc., since appellee failed to either object or respond to it; he concludes that the trial court, therefore, erred in deeming appellee\u2019s requests for admissions admitted. We find no merit in this contention. The burden of obtaining a ruling falls upon the movant; and, the failure to secure one constitutes a waiver of said motion precluding its consideration on appeal. Rea v. Ruff, 265 Ark. 678, 580 S.W. 2d 471 (1979).\nAs his next point for reversal appellant asserts that the trial court erred in granting a summary judgment by finding no genuine issues of material fact remaining for trial. We do not reach the merits of this issue since appellant has failed to abstract the request for admissions which is a material part of the record necessary to decide this issue. Rule 9 (d), Rules of the Supreme Court (Ark. Stat. Ann., Vol. 3A, p. 486 [Repl. 1979]). Since we, therefore, cannot determine what fact issues remained for trial, we must affirm under Rule 9 (e) (2). Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs, 263 Ark. 113, 563 S.W. 2d 707 (1978). Smith v. Bullard, 271 Ark. 794 (1981).\nAppellant has invoked the jurisdiction of this court under Rule 29, Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, alleging deprivation of his rights under the Arkansas Constitution. More specifically, he contends that he \u201cdid not enjoy the equality before the law that any citizen of the State of Arkansas should expect\u201d and cites the \u201cConstitution of Arkansas, Article II, Section 1, 2, 3, and 7.\u201d However, generalized contentions that one\u2019s constitutional rights have been violated are insufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Arkansas Supreme Court under Rule 29 (1) (a); in the future we will not maintain jurisdiction in such cases.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Q. Byrum Hurst, Jr. and Stephany Rush, for appellant.",
      "Eichenbaum, Scott, Miller, Crockett, Darr & Hawk and Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James T. COLLIER v. HOT SPRINGS SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION\n80-202\n612 S.W. 2d 730\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 16, 1981\nQ. Byrum Hurst, Jr. and Stephany Rush, for appellant.\nEichenbaum, Scott, Miller, Crockett, Darr & Hawk and Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0162-01",
  "first_page_order": 184,
  "last_page_order": 186
}