{
  "id": 1755058,
  "name": "Ernest L. WALKER v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Walker v. State",
  "decision_date": "1981-11-23",
  "docket_number": "CR 81-73",
  "first_page": "325",
  "last_page": "325",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "274 Ark. 325"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "624 S.W.2d 439"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "274 Ark. 124",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1755055
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/274/0124-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 121,
    "char_count": 1176,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.655,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 9.505882454708161e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5204674094898969
    },
    "sha256": "1bdc7e7fdbbd00d6117bac07f0aa715364b9d65229549f57c0ff0845fda50e3b",
    "simhash": "1:642c28322a0c3213",
    "word_count": 203
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:01:13.587143+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ernest L. WALKER v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nGeorge C. Howard, of Chicago, Illinois, one of the appellant\u2019s counsel, has filed a second motion to be relieved as counsel of record. That motion will not be considered unless and until Howard complies with Rule XIV, Rules Governing Admission to the Bar, Ark. Stat. Ann. Vol. 3A (Repl. 1979), pertaining to practice by comity. See Walker v. State, 274 Ark. 124, 622 S.W. 2d 193 (1981). A formal statement will have to be filed with the clerk of this court, not merely an expression of willingness as indicated in this second motion.\nFurthermore, counsel must be prepared to show this court that no prejudice will result to Walker\u2019s case if the motion is granted. Evidently the record of the trial is in counsel\u2019s possession and a dispute exists between Walker and the appellant\u2019s mother over the fee to be paid. That dispute will have to be resolved so that no prejudice results to appellant\u2019s case.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George C. Howard, of Howard, Mann ir Slaughter, Chicago, 111., for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Alice Ann Burns, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ernest L. WALKER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 81-73\n624 S.W. 2d 439\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nNovember 23, 1981\nGeorge C. Howard, of Howard, Mann ir Slaughter, Chicago, 111., for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Alice Ann Burns, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0325-01",
  "first_page_order": 353,
  "last_page_order": 353
}