{
  "id": 1880850,
  "name": "Joe A. BARKER and Leo E. Barker v. Albert E. BATES and Shirley Bates",
  "name_abbreviation": "Barker v. Bates",
  "decision_date": "1991-02-18",
  "docket_number": "RC 90-68",
  "first_page": "584",
  "last_page": "585",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "304 Ark. 584"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "803 S.W.2d 554"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "264 Ark. 561",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1668966
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1978,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/264/0561-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "429 F.2d 89",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "F.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        2235860
      ],
      "year": 1970,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/f2d/429/0089-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 185",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871374
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0185-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 152,
    "char_count": 1562,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.862,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.06903761570655277
    },
    "sha256": "a827a0fd21bd12affef9ab56d4f432f3079d841be141e44b8d7184b14661e9e5",
    "simhash": "1:6f3c24ebac600a7e",
    "word_count": 268
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:15:14.712931+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Joe A. BARKER and Leo E. Barker v. Albert E. BATES and Shirley Bates"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nIn this civil case, we denied the petitioners\u2019 motion for rule on the clerk to lodge the transcript because the attempt to lodge it with this Court was untimely. The petitioners ask that we reconsider our ruling, stating that we \u201croutinely grant a rule on the clerk when counsel freely admits his negligence in tendering the record on appeal in . . . [an untimely] manner.\u201d The case cited in support of that statement is Shuffield v. State, 292 Ark. 185, 729 S.W.2d 11 (1987).\nIt is correct to say that we routinely grant such motions in criminal cases. The reason is as follows:\nThe authorities, Blanchard v. Brewer, 429 F.2d 89 (8th Cir. 1970), hold that the denial of an appeal for such causes amounts to a denial of a constitutional right, on the theory that such a miscalculation, although honestly made, amounts to ineffective assistance of counsel.\nSince to deny the Motion for a Rule on the Clerk would furnish grounds for Petitioner to obtain a new trial in a post-conviction proceeding, we as a pragmatical matter must grant the motion to docket the record as a belated appeal.\nHarkness v. State, 264 Ark. 561, 572 S.W.2d 835 (1978).\nThe \u201cpragmatical\u201d basis of the Harkness case rule does not apply in civil cases, so we do not grant such petitions except in criminal cases.\nPetition denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Westphal & Steenken, by: F. Lewis Steenken, for appellant.",
      "Ralph C. Williams, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Joe A. BARKER and Leo E. Barker v. Albert E. BATES and Shirley Bates\nRC 90-68\n803 S.W.2d 554\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 18, 1991.\nWestphal & Steenken, by: F. Lewis Steenken, for appellant.\nRalph C. Williams, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0584-01",
  "first_page_order": 634,
  "last_page_order": 635
}