{
  "id": 1889941,
  "name": "Daniel Eugene REMETA v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Remeta v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-04-17",
  "docket_number": "CR 87-214",
  "first_page": "436",
  "last_page": "436",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "298 Ark. 436"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "771 S.W.2d 249"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 106,
    "char_count": 1022,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.877,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.1995933875888662e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7635807611118928
    },
    "sha256": "286ea7f4a68e763bccab90dbb9b4d210dd73c30ff2f15e15d33acf53aa2eec2d",
    "simhash": "1:e91e9e9c646c57ff",
    "word_count": 174
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:53.094543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Daniel Eugene REMETA v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant\u2019s motion to file an enlarged brief is denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      },
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice,\ndissenting. This case involves the death sentence. The appellant tendered his brief, the argument portion of which exceeds by 17 pages the page limit allowed by Supreme Court Rule 8(c). He requested this court to waive the rule and allow him to exceed the limit.\nOn this same date, in Logan v. State, CR 87-45, an appeal involving seven convictions for rape, the state filed a brief exceeding the argument limit by 23 pages. The state requests that we waive the rule.\nThis court denied the appellant\u2019s motion for an additional 17 pages and granted the state\u2019s request in the other case for 23 additional pages. Apparently we are using different scales of justice for appellants and the state.\nI would grant both or deny both.",
        "type": "dissent",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice,"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Douglas, Hewett & Shock, by: J. Randolph Shock, for appellant.",
      "No objection."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Daniel Eugene REMETA v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 87-214\n771 S.W.2d 249\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 17, 1989\nDouglas, Hewett & Shock, by: J. Randolph Shock, for appellant.\nNo objection."
  },
  "file_name": "0436-01",
  "first_page_order": 464,
  "last_page_order": 464
}