{
  "id": 1900972,
  "name": "Jimmy Lane WICOFF v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wicoff v. State",
  "decision_date": "1991-09-09",
  "docket_number": "RC 91-44",
  "first_page": "401",
  "last_page": "402",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "306 Ark. 401"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "814 S.W.2d 267"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "613 S.W.2d 90",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1174872,
        1174882
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/272/0203-01",
        "/ark/272/0243-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "272 Ark. 243",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1174882
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/272/0243-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 964",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 103,
    "char_count": 903,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.866,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.0694424655645947
    },
    "sha256": "5a86a2e2c13d2dad6ed14c2fbf64e6c36630329592c1ad6aaa41eb0a1ea3135a",
    "simhash": "1:338ee655e13e5a28",
    "word_count": 161
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:19:57.276738+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jimmy Lane WICOFF v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant, Jimmy Lane Wicoff, by his \u00e1ttor-\nney, Christopher Carter has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. His attorney admits that the record was tendered late because the ninety-day limit for filing the record in this Court, see Ark. R. App. P. 5(a), was not extended by a new trial motion with respect to which no record was made. See Ark. R. App. P. 4(c).\nWe find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See per curiam dated February 5, 1919, In re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964; Terry v. State, 272 Ark. 243, 613 S.W.2d 90 (1981).\nA copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Christopher O\u2019Hara Carter, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jimmy Lane WICOFF v. STATE of Arkansas\nRC 91-44\n814 S.W.2d 267\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 9, 1991\nChristopher O\u2019Hara Carter, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0401-01",
  "first_page_order": 453,
  "last_page_order": 454
}