{
  "id": 1891418,
  "name": "OTTER CREEK MALL and Otter Creek Mall Company v. QUINN COMPANIES, INC., et al.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Otter Creek Mall v. Quinn Companies, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "1988-11-21",
  "docket_number": "88-114",
  "first_page": "136",
  "last_page": "137",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "297 Ark. 136"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "759 S.W.2d 810"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1427,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.901,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.8172472706271035e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3030205622026612
    },
    "sha256": "b7816011e76caae41557ce57d2f7031d08574167345dd0d84d32b701491d435e",
    "simhash": "1:9462663eab26c379",
    "word_count": 234
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:39.933112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Purtle, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "OTTER CREEK MALL and Otter Creek Mall Company v. QUINN COMPANIES, INC., et al."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThis is an appeal from a dismissal of the appellants\u2019 interpleader action. We hold it is not a final order and dismiss the appeal under ARCP Rule 54(b).\nThere was an existing lawsuit between the appellee Luke Quinn and two entities called Otter Creek Park and Otter Creek Park Company. The appellants, not parties to that lawsuit, owed Quinn $37,337.68 on a note.\nProceeding more like intervenors, the appellants filed a motion for interpleader in the existing lawsuit alleging the money was claimed not only by Quinn but by Otter Creek Park.\nA special judge signed an ex parte order granting the motion. Upon learning of this, Quinn immediately asked that the interpleader be dismissed saying there were no competing claims to the money. The regular trial judge set aside the ex parte order and dismissed the appellants from the suit.\nThe interpleader was not filed as an original, independent action. The appellants injected themselves into an existing lawsuit. As a result the order dismissing them left other claims and parties remaining in the case and was not a final order. ARCP Rule 54(b).\nAppeal dismissed.\nPurtle, J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "House, Wallace & Jewell, P.A., for appellant.",
      "Kaplan, Brewer & Miller, P.A., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "OTTER CREEK MALL and Otter Creek Mall Company v. QUINN COMPANIES, INC., et al.\n88-114\n759 S.W.2d 810\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 21, 1988\nHouse, Wallace & Jewell, P.A., for appellant.\nKaplan, Brewer & Miller, P.A., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0136-01",
  "first_page_order": 162,
  "last_page_order": 163
}