{
  "id": 1889856,
  "name": "ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Arkansas Western Gas Company v. ARKANSAS CHARCOAL COMPANY and TXO Production Corporation",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Arkansas Charcoal Co.",
  "decision_date": "1989-03-20",
  "docket_number": "89-13",
  "first_page": "301",
  "last_page": "302",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "298 Ark. 301"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "766 S.W.2d 931"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 141,
    "char_count": 1717,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.919,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.41915634668322e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3581995037014699
    },
    "sha256": "95c5a5f2b42b5775d7838e1ce0d034397d0157489bbf3eed926f39c73e2f29cb",
    "simhash": "1:ed39ecaf618b267f",
    "word_count": 279
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:53.094543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Arkansas Western Gas Company v. ARKANSAS CHARCOAL COMPANY and TXO Production Corporation"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nOn February 6,1989, we granted review of the\ndecision of the Arkansas Court of Appeals in which it was held that the Arkansas Public Service Commission could not regulate a pipeline from a TXO facility to Arkansas Charcoal Company except to the extent of requiring an environmental impact statement.\nThe Commission and Arkansas Western Gas Company have moved to stay the mandate of the court of appeals. TXO and Arkansas Charcoal Company oppose the motion for fear that staying the court of appeals mandate will reinstate cease and desist orders issued by the Commission which were the subject of the appeal to the court of appeals. They suggest that if the court of appeals mandate is stayed, the only way to retain the status quo is to stay the cease and desist orders of the Commission as well.\nThe Commission and Arkansas Western Gas Company have responded that they have no objection to staying the Commission\u2019s orders.\nThe court of appeals mandate in this case is stayed as are the orders of the Commission.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "George C. Vena, Ass\u2019t Gen. Counsel, for petitioner Arkansas Public Service Commission.",
      "Keck, Mahin & Cate, by: Robert Y. Hirasuna and Jeffrey L. Dangeau, for petitioner Arkansas Western Gas Company.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Paul Cherry, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for petitioner Consumer Utility Rate Advocacy Division.",
      "Preston, Thorgrimson, Ellis & Holman, by: Carol S. Arnold', and Rose Law Firm, A Professional Association, by: Herbert C. Rule III, for respondent TXO Production Corp."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION and Arkansas Western Gas Company v. ARKANSAS CHARCOAL COMPANY and TXO Production Corporation\n89-13\n766 S.W.2d 931\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 20, 1989\nGeorge C. Vena, Ass\u2019t Gen. Counsel, for petitioner Arkansas Public Service Commission.\nKeck, Mahin & Cate, by: Robert Y. Hirasuna and Jeffrey L. Dangeau, for petitioner Arkansas Western Gas Company.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Paul Cherry, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for petitioner Consumer Utility Rate Advocacy Division.\nPreston, Thorgrimson, Ellis & Holman, by: Carol S. Arnold', and Rose Law Firm, A Professional Association, by: Herbert C. Rule III, for respondent TXO Production Corp."
  },
  "file_name": "0301-01",
  "first_page_order": 329,
  "last_page_order": 330
}