{
  "id": 1877729,
  "name": "SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MID-STATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Southwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Mid-State Construction Co.",
  "decision_date": "1985-04-22",
  "docket_number": "84-300",
  "first_page": "413",
  "last_page": "414",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "285 Ark. 413"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "688 S.W.2d 278"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "651 S.W.2d 63",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "279 Ark. 470",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 189,
    "char_count": 2420,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.84,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.318742955078255e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2718531080383451
    },
    "sha256": "7d63220d6cc451aeea91d9d9cb88bbd1ee15e1e8f2f9dd313ab90108e072f51e",
    "simhash": "1:bd3d920da17c2321",
    "word_count": 393
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:39.025760+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MID-STATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "George Rose Smith, Justice.\nThis action was brought by the appellant, Southwestern Bell, to recover for damage to its underground cables caused by the appellee, Mid-State Construction Company. Mid-State counterclaimed for the amount of needless expenses incurred as a result of Southwestern Bell\u2019s misrepresentation of the location of the cables and negligent failure to relocate them as promised. The jury awarded Southwestern Bell $216.34 on its complaint and Mid-State $4,110.40 on its counterclaim. Southwestern Bell appeals on the single ground that the verdict against it is not supported by sufficient evidence. Rule 29(1 )(o) brings the case to us.\nWe cannot reach the merits of the appeal, because the issue was not properly raised below. Counsel did not file a motion for a directed verdict on the counterclaim and instead sought to question the sufficiency of the evidence by a motion for a new trial. That procedure was formerly permissible, but more than a year before the trial we amended Civil Procedure Rule 50(e) to eliminate that method of questioning the opposing party\u2019s proof. The change was desirable, for if a party cannot produce substantial evidence to support his claim, a new trial would be useless.\nThe controlling Rule, since the 1983 revision, has read as follows:\n(e) Failure to Question Sufficiency of the Evidence. When there has been a trial by jury, the failure of a party to file a motion for directed verdict at the conclusion of all the evidence, or a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, because of insufficiency of the evidence will constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict.\nThe Reporter\u2019s Notes were amended to call attention to the deletion:\nRule 50(e) is amended to omit the reference to the motion for new trial as a means of challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict are used to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence.\nIn Re: Amendments to the Rules of Civil Procedure, 279 Ark. 470, 651 S.W.2d 63 (1983). The issue that Southwestern Bell seeks to present to this Court has been waived.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "George Rose Smith, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephany Ann Slagle, for appellant.",
      "Tom Lienhart, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SOUTHWESTERN BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY v. MID-STATE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC.\n84-300\n688 S.W.2d 278\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 22, 1985\nStephany Ann Slagle, for appellant.\nTom Lienhart, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0413-01",
  "first_page_order": 443,
  "last_page_order": 444
}