{
  "id": 1742361,
  "name": "Nell Godley Rose DENT v. Billy F. ROSE and Bobby D. ROSE",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dent v. Rose",
  "decision_date": "1983-11-28",
  "docket_number": "83-171",
  "first_page": "42",
  "last_page": "43",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "281 Ark. 42"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "661 S.W.2d 361"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "280 Ark. 331",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1744845
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/280/0331-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 300",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756219
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0300-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1486,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.829,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06537311634770984
    },
    "sha256": "5c042ea46d6b8916bbdecc51425b063a61b87d30aa0aaed264765243c89fa469",
    "simhash": "1:579a0f65e92e1b8c",
    "word_count": 254
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:39:06.319855+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nell Godley Rose DENT v. Billy F. ROSE and Bobby D. ROSE"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nJack Farrell Rose died intestate in 1979, survived by his widow (the appellant) and by two sons (the appellees). In 1982 the sons filed a petition in the administration proceedings, asking for a judgment declaring that the widow is not entitled to dower because the dower statutes in force at Rose\u2019s death were unconstitutional as being discriminatory as between men and women. This appeal by the widow is from a j udgment declaring the dower statutes to be unconstitutinal and denying dower.\nThe probate judge relied upon our decisions in Stokes v. Stokes, 271 Ark. 300, 613 S.W.2d 372 (1981), and two similar cases, all of which involved the right of a widow to renounce her husband\u2019s will and elect to take dower instead. The probate judge did not have the benefit of a case decided more recently, in which we explained that the language in Stokes and similar cases was too broad, in that our earlier dower and curtesy statutes were valid in cases of intestacy, because there was no difference between the dower of a surviving wife and the curtesy of a surviving husband. Beck v. Merritt, 280 Ark. 331, 657 S.W.2d 549 (1983). The appellant is therefore entitled to dower in the present case.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Blaine A. Jackson and Ernest G. Lawrence, for appellant.",
      "Burrow & Sawyer, by: Stephen P. Sawyer, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nell Godley Rose DENT v. Billy F. ROSE and Bobby D. ROSE\n83-171\n661 S.W.2d 361\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 28, 1983\nBlaine A. Jackson and Ernest G. Lawrence, for appellant.\nBurrow & Sawyer, by: Stephen P. Sawyer, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0042-01",
  "first_page_order": 66,
  "last_page_order": 67
}