{
  "id": 8719836,
  "name": "CITY OF JACKSONVILLE v. Charles MARTIN",
  "name_abbreviation": "City of Jacksonville v. Martin",
  "decision_date": "1985-06-24",
  "docket_number": "85-57",
  "first_page": "288",
  "last_page": "290",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "286 Ark. 288"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "692 S.W.2d 226"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "223 Ark. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1650186
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1954,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/223/0001-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 218,
    "char_count": 2550,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.881,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.20851080507010256
    },
    "sha256": "21014855f4abdb120bdc1cfbecb7f4bab003af185e160696f17ff8adc3149b53",
    "simhash": "1:f0eae2f42834c633",
    "word_count": 417
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:29:09.553890+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "George Rose Smith, Jr., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "CITY OF JACKSONVILLE v. Charles MARTIN"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThis appeal is from an injunction granted in favor of the appellee, a police officer, against the City of Jacksonville, enjoining the city \u201cfrom pursuing a practice whereby the plaintiff (appellee) is required to accept regular pay for hours in excess of 40 per week, . . . and, from treating any of the plaintiffs (appellee\u2019s) normal days off as vacation.\u201d This case was certified to us by the court of appeals as presenting a question of statutory construction. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Sup. Ct. R. 29(l)(c).\nAppellee filed suit in chancery court contending that the City of Jacksonville has devised a scheme and plan which violates the laws of the State of Arkansas as they relate to the working conditions of the appellee and that the appellant should be permanently enjoined and restrained from engaging in such conduct. He also asked that the appellant be directed to pay appellee\u2019s attorney\u2019s fees and costs.\nAppellant responded to this complaint with an answer and motion to dismiss, stating in part, that appellee has an adequate remedy at law and that equitable relief is not appropriate. We agree.\nThe issue presented is a dispute over the proper method of determining overtime and vacation compensation. The controlling statute on compensation for police officers is Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a719-1712 (Repl. 1980). Whether or not the appellee is entitled to certain compensation for work in excess of 40 hours per week is a question of law for which there is an adequate remedy in circuit court. In addition to the appellee\u2019s action at law for back pay, Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 34-2502 (Repl. 1962) and Ark. R. Civ. P. 57 permit a declaratory judgment to be sought for the purpose of determining a controversy as to statutory interpretation. Injunctive relief however was not an appropriate remedy because it is not proper for the judiciary to issue a continuing injunction requiring the City of Jacksonville to determine the question of compensation correctly throughout the indefinite future. Young v. Clayton, 223 Ark. 1, 264 S.W.2d 41 (1954).\nThe appellant\u2019s motion to dismiss should have been treated as a motion to transfer to circuit court. Accordingly we reverse the trial court and remand with instructions to transfer the proceedings to circuit court.\nReversed and remanded.\nGeorge Rose Smith, Jr., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Keith Vaughn, P.A., for appellant.",
      "Lesly W. Mattingly, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "CITY OF JACKSONVILLE v. Charles MARTIN\n85-57\n692 S.W.2d 226\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 24, 1985\nKeith Vaughn, P.A., for appellant.\nLesly W. Mattingly, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0288-01",
  "first_page_order": 318,
  "last_page_order": 320
}