{
  "id": 1742322,
  "name": "Stanley HARPER and Stephen HARPER v. NASH IMPLEMENT COMPANY, INC., and its Successor, WHEATLEY IMPLEMENT COMPANY, INC., WHITE MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION and Clay NASH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Harper v. Nash Implement Co.",
  "decision_date": "1984-01-09",
  "docket_number": "83-226",
  "first_page": "161",
  "last_page": "162",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "281 Ark. 161"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "662 S.W.2d 811"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "246 Ark. 268",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1604021
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/246/0268-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ark. 556",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8720825
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/266/0556-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "278 Ark. 27",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1748189
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/278/0027-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 163,
    "char_count": 1793,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.822,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.317852702137001e-08,
      "percentile": 0.43633586359668075
    },
    "sha256": "e99a7527a862ff4ed578562d026a2b649648b21c6e3cb2e07a22a64ba596b9d2",
    "simhash": "1:b3eaccb6e06cb9f0",
    "word_count": 295
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:39:06.319855+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hollingsworth, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Stanley HARPER and Stephen HARPER v. NASH IMPLEMENT COMPANY, INC., and its Successor, WHEATLEY IMPLEMENT COMPANY, INC., WHITE MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION and Clay NASH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.\nOn December 13, 1982, this Court reversed and remanded this case for retrial holding that the Faulkner County Circuit Court erred in prohibiting appellants from producing evidence as to the commercial reasonableness of the property sale under the Uniform Commercial Code. We also held that the trial court was correct in striking appellants\u2019 counterclaim pursuant to Rule 37, ARCP, because of the failure of appellants to answer interrogatories. Harper v. Wheatley, 278 Ark. 27, 643 S.W.2d 537 (1982). The sole issue on this second appeal is whether the trial court, on remand, correctly refused to permit additional pleadings on appellants\u2019 counterclaim. The trial court applied the doctrine of \u201claw of the case\u201d and refused to allow additional pleadings. On appeal we affirm.\nThe principles of law determined and announced in the former appeal are binding and must stand as the law of the case. Ferguson v. Green, 266 Ark. 556, 587 S.W.2d 18 (1979); St. Louis S.W. Railway Co. v. Jackson, 246 Ark. 268, 438 S. W.2d 41 (1969). The decision of the trial court pursuant to Rule 37, ARCP, was approved by this Court in the first appeal. On retrial the trial court correctly applied the doctrine of \u201claw of the case\u201d in applying the law set out in this Court\u2019s opinion in the original appeal. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court was correct in refusing to grant a trial de novo on all of the issues.\nHollingsworth, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Guy Jones, Jr., P.A., for appellants.",
      "James D. Sprott, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Stanley HARPER and Stephen HARPER v. NASH IMPLEMENT COMPANY, INC., and its Successor, WHEATLEY IMPLEMENT COMPANY, INC., WHITE MOTOR CREDIT CORPORATION and Clay NASH\n83-226\n662 S.W.2d 811\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 9, 1984\nGuy Jones, Jr., P.A., for appellants.\nJames D. Sprott, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0161-01",
  "first_page_order": 193,
  "last_page_order": 194
}