{
  "id": 1892789,
  "name": "Carl WIDMER v. Robert C. TAYLOR, et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Widmer v. Taylor",
  "decision_date": "1988-09-26",
  "docket_number": "88-84",
  "first_page": "337",
  "last_page": "338",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "296 Ark. 337"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "756 S.W.2d 903"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "294 Ark. 8",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1895793
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/294/0008-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 Ark. 9",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893793
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/295/0009-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "288 Ark. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8721006
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/288/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "729 S.W.2d 422",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        6139264,
        1871320
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/21/0134-01",
        "/ark/292/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871320
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "731 S.W.2d 209",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1871128,
        1871217
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0526-01",
        "/ark/292/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 486",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871217
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0486-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "293 Ark. 296",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1869764
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/293/0296-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 182,
    "char_count": 1843,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.873,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1544728360513104e-07,
      "percentile": 0.58213471132873
    },
    "sha256": "3fbd9a32532805fca04eba7120795203d21613fa383c779c17b9466435f4d0ad",
    "simhash": "1:5b780817332537ba",
    "word_count": 302
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:25:51.901471+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Carl WIDMER v. Robert C. TAYLOR, et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThis is the sixth appeal regarding this case. Widmer v. Widmer, 293 Ark. 296, 737 S.W.2d 457 (1987); Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 486, 731 S.W.2d 209 (1987); Widmer v. Widmer, 292 Ark. 384, 729 S.W.2d 422 (1987); Widmer v. Widmer, 288 Ark. 381, 705 S.W.2d 878 (1986); Widmer v. Widmer, No. CA85-217 (Ark. App. February 26, 1986).\nThis time Carl Widmer has sued Robert Taylor. Taylor is the lawyer who prepared Widmer\u2019s father\u2019s will which has been the subject of so much litigation. The suit sounded in tort for legal malpractice, fraud and wrongful death.\nThe trial judge dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, the statute of limitations, and res judicata/collateral estoppel and law of the case.\nOn appeal, we affirm. The appellant\u2019s abstract, which consists of extensive verbatim reproduction of the record, clearly violates Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 9(d). Added to that shortcoming, which leaves us without an impartial abridgement of the record, is the appellant\u2019s brief. It is an incoherent conglomeration of statements and arguments which cannot be fairly characterized as a legal brief.\nSeveral times we have dismissed arguments because they are not convincing or lack authority. Reed v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Division, 295 Ark. 9, 746 S.W.2d 368 (1988), Eddleman v. Estate of Farmer, 294 Ark. 8, 740 S.W.2d 141 (1987).\nIn this case we affirm the court\u2019s decision for that reason and for failure to comply with Rule 9(d).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Carl Widmer, for appellant.",
      "Douglas, Hewett and Shock, by: J. Randolph Shock, for appellee Raymond F. Widmer.",
      "Jones, Gilbreath, Jackson & Moll, by: Robert L. Jones III, for appellees Robert C. Taylor; Warner, Warner, Ragon & Smith; and Warner & Smith."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Carl WIDMER v. Robert C. TAYLOR, et al.\n88-84\n756 S.W.2d 903\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 26, 1988\nCarl Widmer, for appellant.\nDouglas, Hewett and Shock, by: J. Randolph Shock, for appellee Raymond F. Widmer.\nJones, Gilbreath, Jackson & Moll, by: Robert L. Jones III, for appellees Robert C. Taylor; Warner, Warner, Ragon & Smith; and Warner & Smith."
  },
  "file_name": "0337-01",
  "first_page_order": 363,
  "last_page_order": 364
}