{
  "id": 1889913,
  "name": "James A. DUTY and Opal Duty v. Barry WATKINS",
  "name_abbreviation": "Duty v. Watkins",
  "decision_date": "1989-04-24",
  "docket_number": "88-291",
  "first_page": "437",
  "last_page": "438",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "298 Ark. 437"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "768 S.W.2d 526"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "298 S.W. 215",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1927,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 Ark. 932",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8725476
      ],
      "year": 1927,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/174/0932-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 Ark. 984",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1688430
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1962,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "interpreting Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-1405 [Repl. 1962], virtually identical to Rule 41 [a]"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "interpreting Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-1405 [Repl. 1962], virtually identical to Rule 41 [a]"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/234/0984-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2019,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.867,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0421167243102926e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7478667675219675
    },
    "sha256": "8a61b689712ae5e38aa5b4afc847228dea1f3b3ae44adbf18d16d21b9c55c315",
    "simhash": "1:2a61ad777d0e1375",
    "word_count": 344
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:53.094543+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James A. DUTY and Opal Duty v. Barry WATKINS"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe appellants\u2019 lawsuit was dismissed because they refused to comply with an order compelling discovery. We affirm the court\u2019s action dismissing the appellant Opal Duty with prejudice, but we reverse and remand to allow James Duty to take a nonsuit.\nJames Duty and his mother, Opal, filed suit against Barry Watkins, an attorney. Watkins filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to answer discovery requests. Since Judge Kim Smith had disqualified himself in the case, the motion to dismiss was heard by Judge Mahlon Gibson.\nJames Duty appeared pro se at the hearing and asked to take a nonsuit under ARCP Rule 41(a). The appellee claimed his motion to dismiss for failure to respond to discovery should be ruled on first. The trial judge agreed and granted the appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss with prejudice.\nJames Duty\u2019s request for a nonsuit should have been granted. The rule is clear that the privilege to take a nonsuit before final submission of a case is absolute. Haller v. Haller, 234 Ark. 984, 356 S.W.2d 9 (1962) (interpreting Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-1405 [Repl. 1962], virtually identical to Rule 41 [a]). This case had not been finally submitted because, although the case had come to a hearing, the argument was not yet closed. See Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assoc. v. Tilley, 174 Ark. 932, 298 S.W. 215 (1927).\nOpal Duty did not appear at the hearing and made no motion for a nonsuit. James, as a layman, could not represent her, so the dismissal with prejudice stands as to her.\nSince we are reversing to allow a nonsuit, we need not address the question of whether Judge Gibson should have disqualified on his own motion.\nAffirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James A. Duty and Opal Duty, for appellants.",
      "Bassett Law Firm, by: Curtis L. Nebben, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James A. DUTY and Opal Duty v. Barry WATKINS\n88-291\n768 S.W.2d 526\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 24, 1989\n[Rehearing denied May 30, 1989.]\nJames A. Duty and Opal Duty, for appellants.\nBassett Law Firm, by: Curtis L. Nebben, for appellee.\nPurtle, J., would grant rehearing."
  },
  "file_name": "0437-01",
  "first_page_order": 465,
  "last_page_order": 466
}