{
  "id": 1877663,
  "name": "Joe MOUROT, Marlin FREEMAN and Joyce BAILEY v. ARKANSAS BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mourot v. Arkansas Board of Dispensing Opticians",
  "decision_date": "1985-03-04",
  "docket_number": "84-241",
  "first_page": "128",
  "last_page": "130",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "285 Ark. 128"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "685 S.W.2d 502"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "209 Ark. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1475860
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1945,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/209/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "655 S.W.2d 426",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1744848,
        1744798
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/280/0106-01",
        "/ark/280/0164-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 Ark. 106",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1744848
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/280/0106-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3247,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.848,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.333493452170769e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6294922985857476
    },
    "sha256": "deeff4118fadccdfa3e485a004a8bf5a5d2ad85a108ff3a9b1a18c265ac0e2fd",
    "simhash": "1:1ba6fc0438cbdf34",
    "word_count": 510
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:39.025760+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joe MOUROT, Marlin FREEMAN and Joyce BAILEY v. ARKANSAS BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice.\nThe Arkansas Board of Dispensing Opticians was created by Act 589 of 1981 (Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 72-2102 \u2014 72-2123 [Supp. 1983]). Among the Board\u2019s duties are the registration and licensure of dispensing opticians. Applicants for registration or licensure are normally required to successfully complete an examination of their professional skills. However, section nine of the Act (Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 72-2109) is a \u201cgrandfather clause\u201d which allows the registration or licensure, without examination, of dispensing opticians who meet certain requirements. Under section nine, the requirements for obtaining a certificate of registry are somewhat different from the requirements for obtaining a certificate of licensure.\nAppellants applied to the Board for certificates of licensure under section nine. The applications were denied. Appellants appealed to the full Board which, after interviews with appellants, again denied the applications. The Board stated that it was denying the applications because appellants had not \u201cbeen providing direct retail ophthalmic dispensing services as [their] primary mode of employment or business.\u201d Appellants appealed to the circuit court, which affirmed the decision of the Board. This appeal followed.\nThe Board\u2019s decision must be reversed because there is no requirement that an applicant for licensure must have \u201cbeen providing direct retail ophthalmic dispensing services as his primary mode of employment or business. . .\u201d That language is taken from subsection (a) of section nine, which sets out the requirements to be met by applicants for certificates of registry. It has no application to applicants for certificates of licensure. The requirements for applicants for certificates of licensure are set out in subsection (b) of section nine. An applicant under subsection (b) need only show, in addition to requirements not in dispute here, that he has \u201cbeen providing ophthalmic dispensing services to the public. . . for a minimum period of five (5) years immediately prior to the effective date of [the] Act.\u201d Appellants met their burden of proof when they demonstrated that they have been providing such services for the requisite period of time.\nContrary to the Board\u2019s argument, neither this court nor the Board has the authority to add a \u201cfull time,\u201d \u201cprimary mode of employment,\u201d or \u201cretail\u201d requirement to subsection (b). When a statute is plain and unambiguous, we must give it effect as it reads. In such cases, we are primarily concerned with what the document says, not with what its drafters may have intended. Bishop v. Linkway Stores, Inc., 280 Ark. 106, 655 S.W.2d 426 (1983); City of Little Rock v. Arkansas Corp. Commission, 209 Ark. 18, 189 S.W.2d 382 (1945). If the General Assembly did intend to say something different in subsection (b), it has the authority to amend the Act. Unless and until the General Assembly does amend the Act, our duty is to apply it as it reads.\nReversed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Larry D. Vaught, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Thomas S. Gay, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joe MOUROT, Marlin FREEMAN and Joyce BAILEY v. ARKANSAS BOARD OF DISPENSING OPTICIANS\n84-241\n685 S.W.2d 502\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 4, 1985\nLarry D. Vaught, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Thomas S. Gay, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0128-01",
  "first_page_order": 152,
  "last_page_order": 154
}