{
  "id": 1904374,
  "name": "Vaugn YOUNG v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Young v. State",
  "decision_date": "1992-02-17",
  "docket_number": "CR 91-219",
  "first_page": "372",
  "last_page": "373",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "308 Ark. 372"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "823 S.W.2d 911"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 114,
    "char_count": 1296,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.924,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.474140541606369e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44526456947876114
    },
    "sha256": "ea298935a1cc84673c978e5d2a40fe3dbfca60db53632520c0e974aeac720c7f",
    "simhash": "1:6b3442a3176e6a5b",
    "word_count": 226
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:40.186541+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Vaugn YOUNG v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellant, Vaugn Young, filed his abstract and brief in this case. The State filed the appellee\u2019s brief. Prior to the time his reply brief was due, the appellant\u2019s attorney realized that his abstract was insufficient and filed a motion asking that he be allowed to supplement his abstract and brief. Since the case is not yet ready for submission, we grant the motion and allow the appellant fifteen days within which to file a substituted abstract and brief.\nRule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals provides that, when it does not cause an unreasonable or unjust delay in the deposition of an appeal, an appellant\u2019s attorney may be allowed time to reprint his brief, at his own expense, to conform to Rule 9(d). Granting the motion in this case will not cause an unjust delay since the case is not yet ready for submission and other cases are ready for submission. Upon filing of the substituted abstract and brief, the appellee will be afforded an opportunity to revise or supplement its brief, at the expense of the appellant\u2019s counsel.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry Boyce, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Didi H. Sailings, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Vaugn YOUNG v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 91-219\n823 S.W.2d 911\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 17, 1992\nHenry Boyce, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Didi H. Sailings, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0372-01",
  "first_page_order": 400,
  "last_page_order": 401
}