{ "id": 1884298, "name": "Marvin V. CARMICAL and Margaret E. CARMICAL v. CITY OF BEEBE, et al.", "name_abbreviation": "Carmical v. City of Beebe", "decision_date": "1990-05-29", "docket_number": "89-308", "first_page": "339", "last_page": "341", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "302 Ark. 339" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "789 S.W.2d 453" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "293 Ark. 187", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1869765 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/293/0187-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 Ark. 74", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1891437 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "citing Kilgore v. Viner, 293 Ark. 187, 736 S.W.2d 1 (1987)" }, { "parenthetical": "citing Kilgore v. Viner, 293 Ark. 187, 736 S.W.2d 1 (1987)" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/297/0074-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 Ark. 270", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1893779 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/295/0270-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 252, "char_count": 3547, "ocr_confidence": 0.874, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.809815366630202e-08, "percentile": 0.4575677964236525 }, "sha256": "324d1464b628772daf2625d42b6f284489b75e28fd09c401c516ebd181a67fe1", "simhash": "1:92f98c5961ac2df8", "word_count": 613 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T14:34:09.444418+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Marvin V. CARMICAL and Margaret E. CARMICAL v. CITY OF BEEBE, et al." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThis is an action challenging the granting by the trial court of the appellee\u2019s motion to dismiss. We find that the order appealed from is not final and dismiss the appeal.\nOn September 22, 1988, the appellants, Marvin and Margaret Carmical, filed suit against the appellees, City of Beebe, Arkansas; Philip Petray, Mayor of the City of Beebe; Roy E. Simmons, former Mayor of the City of Beebe, individually and in his former official capacity; and Jessie R. Lay, individually and in his former capacity as Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Beebe, for damages arising out of the City\u2019s rescission of a building permit issued to the Carmicals. An affirmative defense of res judicata was raised by all of the appellees in their answers. The appellees also claimed monetary damages on the basis of extreme mental anguish, emotional suffering, and harassment due to the wilfull, wanton, malicious, and intentional conduct of the Carmicals in filing a frivolous lawsuit, as well as sanctions under Ark. R. Civ. P. 11.\nIn an order filed January 23, 1989, the trial court granted the appellees\u2019 motion to dismiss but made no mention of the appellees\u2019 claims for damages against the Carmicals and deferred action on the parties\u2019 claims for sanctions. The attorney for the Carmicals conceded in oral argument that the appellees had made \u201ccounterclaims\u201d that were not denied by the trial court.\nIn order to be final and appealable under Ark. R. App. P. 2 and Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b), a trial court\u2019s order must dismiss the parties from the court, discharge them from the action, or conclude their rights to the subject matter in controversy. Mueller v. Killam, 295 Ark. 270, 748 S.W.2d 141 (1988).\nRule 54(b) provides as follows:\nWhen more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim or third party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.\nThe trial court\u2019s order simply granted the appellees\u2019 motion to dismiss. Therefore, under Rule 54(b), the order does not terminate the action because 1) counterclaims are still pending, and 2) the court did not direct the entry of a final judgment as to fewer than all the claims upon an express determination that there was no just reason for delay and upon express direction for the entry of judgment.\nWe will not reach the merits of an appeal if the order appealed from is not final. Wilburn v. Keenan Cos., 297 Ark. 74, 759 S.W.2d 554 (1988) (citing Kilgore v. Viner, 293 Ark. 187, 736 S.W.2d 1 (1987)).\nAppeal dismissed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Paul D. Groce, for appellants.", "Mills and Patterson, by: John Patterson; and Boyett, Morgan & Millar, by: Comer B. Boyett, Jr., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Marvin V. CARMICAL and Margaret E. CARMICAL v. CITY OF BEEBE, et al.\n89-308\n789 S.W.2d 453\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 29, 1990\nPaul D. Groce, for appellants.\nMills and Patterson, by: John Patterson; and Boyett, Morgan & Millar, by: Comer B. Boyett, Jr., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0339-01", "first_page_order": 365, "last_page_order": 367 }