{
  "id": 1885541,
  "name": "Michael SALAMO v. SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT",
  "name_abbreviation": "Salamo v. Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct",
  "decision_date": "1990-02-12",
  "docket_number": "RC 89-62",
  "first_page": "348",
  "last_page": "350",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "301 Ark. 348"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "783 S.W.2d 858"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "290 Ark. 255",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873706
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0255-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "277 Ark. 183",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1750187
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/277/0183-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 242,
    "char_count": 3607,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.912,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0691271962187757
    },
    "sha256": "9f4e1f99d4b847cf5584c6f7450356a09332b617a39941e10f4dc8c89115ed24",
    "simhash": "1:d10fdd6464da4891",
    "word_count": 588
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:23:07.951222+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Michael SALAMO v. SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellee, Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct, moves to dismiss the appellant\u2019s appeal, stating appellant failed to comply with Rules 3(e) and 6(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure. In sum, appellee asserts that, on October 25,1989, the appellant filed a notice of appeal containing a statement that he ordered a transcript when, in fact, he failed to order it. Appellee submits with its motion the court reporter\u2019s affidavit, dated January 10, 1990, reflecting the appellant had never requested the transcript. Appellee\u2019s executive director also avers appellant made no request for the transcript. The director further states that, by letter dated November 2, 1989, he had notified the appellant that it was appellant\u2019s responsibility to order the transcript. While at one point in his reply to appellee\u2019s motion, appellant suggests that a misunderstanding may have arisen as to whether he had requested the transcript in a telephone conversation he had with the director on October 23, 1989, appellant clearly states he ordered the transcript on January 15, 1990. This assertion is consistent with the court reporter\u2019s affidavit dated January 10,1990, that no request had been made.\nAppellant\u2019s response to appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss deals largely with his claims that he had never received notice of his former client\u2019s complaint filed against him, nor did he receive notice of the appellee\u2019s hearing on that complaint which was conducted before the appellee on September 9,1989. Bearing on appellee\u2019s motion, appellant states that, in his telephone conversation with appellee\u2019s director on October 23,1989, he asked the appellee to certify its entire case file so the file could be docketed with this court as a part of the record in this appeal. He needed the file information, he suggests, to make his constitutional and other arguments pertaining to the appellee\u2019s failure to give him the required legal notice. Appellee in no way denies appellant\u2019s claim that he directed his efforts to have appellee\u2019s case file made a part of the record in this appeal.\nIn Hudson v. Hudson, 277 Ark. 183, 641 S.W.2d 1 (1982), we held it was fatal to an appeal when Ark. R. App. P. 3(e) was totally ignored by the appellant. We have, however, recognized that substantial compliance with the rule is sufficient. Johnson v. Carpenter, 290 Ark. 255, 718 S.W.2d 434 (1986).\nHere, appellant timely filed his notice of appeal, stating he had ordered the transcript. From the pleadings and affidavits before us, appellant did not order the transcript from the reporter on or before filing the notice. See Ark. R. App. P. 6(b). Appellee\u2019s director, by letter dated November 2, 1989, notified appellant that it was his responsibility to order and pay for the transcript. Again, he failed to do either, at least until January 15, 1990, on which date he claims he telephoned the court reporter and requested it. We note that, even if appellant\u2019s January 15th request was made, it was only after the appellee filed its motion to dismiss appellant\u2019s appeal on January 12,1990. We simply do not agree appellant\u2019s actions show that he substantially complied with Rule 3(e). Therefore, we grant appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss the appeal. As a consequence, we deny appellant\u2019s petition for writ of certiorari to complete the record and his motion for extension of time.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Michael Salamo, pro se.",
      "Rudy Moore, Jr., P.A., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Michael SALAMO v. SUPREME COURT COMMITTEE ON PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT\nRC 89-62\n783 S.W.2d 858\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 12, 1990\nMichael Salamo, pro se.\nRudy Moore, Jr., P.A., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0348-01",
  "first_page_order": 378,
  "last_page_order": 380
}