{
  "id": 1740842,
  "name": "Mary E. BROWN v. Evelyn Darlene WILSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brown v. Wilson",
  "decision_date": "1984-05-21",
  "docket_number": "84-67",
  "first_page": "450",
  "last_page": "451",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "282 Ark. 450"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "669 S.W.2d 6"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "276 Ark. 124",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1751499
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/276/0124-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 165,
    "char_count": 1848,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.853,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.005531161889054e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7435398743324417
    },
    "sha256": "ad687c270899c33b5eaa11c6552472b02c7be9b0522434efebe3ca27177b2ee3",
    "simhash": "1:4f38a5a07808f579",
    "word_count": 308
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:21:24.101080+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Mary E. BROWN v. Evelyn Darlene WILSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nAfter the jury returned a verdict for the defendant in this negligence case where fault was admitted, the trial judge set aside the verdict and ordered a new trial. On appeal the defendant argues that the judge abused his discretion. When a trial judge grants a motion for a new trial, the test on review is whether the judge abused his discretion. Clayton v. Wagnon, 276 Ark. 124, 633 S.W.2d 19 (1982). We find no such abuse and affirm the court\u2019s decision.\nMary E. Brown admitted that her vehicle struck the rear of the vehicle driven by Evelyn D. Wilson, when Wilson\u2019s vehicle was stopped. Wilson offered substantial evidence of her subsequent pain and suffering, injury, lost wages, and medical expenses. While Brown offered evidence that Wilson said she was not hurt immediately following the accident and questioned the cause of Wilson\u2019s later complaints, that is not \u00e9nough for us to overrule the trial judge\u2019s decision that the jury was wrong in its verdict. That is one of the prerogatives of a trial court, and is exercised when the verdict is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. See Per Curiam of May 17, 1982.\nThe appellant argues that the trial court\u2019s order reciting the jury\u2019s decision of no \u201cliability\u201d was against the preponderance of the evidence was error because it failed to consider that the jury\u2019s finding could have been based of a lack of proof of causation or damages. We cannot presume that the court\u2019s judgment did not encompass those issues. Review the evidence and the judgment we find no manifest abuse of discretion.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Little, McCollum, Mixon & George, by: James G. Mixon, for appellant.",
      "Matthews, Campbell Stephens, by: JohnM. Stephens, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mary E. BROWN v. Evelyn Darlene WILSON\n84-67\n669 S.W.2d 6\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 21, 1984\nLittle, McCollum, Mixon & George, by: James G. Mixon, for appellant.\nMatthews, Campbell Stephens, by: JohnM. Stephens, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0450-01",
  "first_page_order": 492,
  "last_page_order": 493
}