{
  "id": 1904319,
  "name": "Jeff J. VACHON, On Behalf of Himself and All Persons Similarly Situated v. CITY OF FORT SMITH",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vachon v. City of Fort Smith",
  "decision_date": "1992-03-23",
  "docket_number": "91-216",
  "first_page": "636",
  "last_page": "637",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "308 Ark. 636"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "826 S.W.2d 277"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "308 Ark. 288",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 Ark. 284",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1904306
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "828"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/308/0284-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 Ark. 21",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1882820
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/303/0021-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-1-108",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-1-105",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 26-35-902",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "U.S.C.",
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 220,
    "char_count": 2657,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.935,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.2181438859945236e-08,
      "percentile": 0.2683081137162823
    },
    "sha256": "a97d554e442cc24ffce08deed774deeedeb704838a4bcf7c288ef6ed8c11dbd3",
    "simhash": "1:e322718361ea4397",
    "word_count": 437
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:40.186541+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Jeff J. VACHON, On Behalf of Himself and All Persons Similarly Situated v. CITY OF FORT SMITH"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nAppellant was charged with and convicted of three moving traffic violations in the Municipal Court of Fort Smith. Fines were imposed. He paid the fines and court costs to the Clerk of the Municipal Court and subsequently filed this suit in chancery court. He alleged that the City of Fort Smith illegally exacted court costs from him and violated his right to due process. He sought to have the suit declared a class action and asked for attorney\u2019s fees under 42 U.S.C. \u00a7 1988 (1988) and Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 26-35-902 (1987). The chancellor dismissed the suit because of a lack of jurisdiction. We affirm the dismissal of the action, but do so without prejudice.\nAppellant\u2019s theory of his \u201cillegal exaction\u201d count, his principal basis for chancery jurisdiction, is derived from the fact that criminal offenses are now defined as either felonies, misdemeanors, or violations, see Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-1-105 (1987), and while some traffic offenses continued to be \u201cmisdemeanors,\u201d others are designated only as \u201cviolations\u201d under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-1-108 (1987). The City therefore wrongfully collected \u201cmisdemeanor\u201d costs from him because he was only guilty of \u201cviolations.\u201d As stated, the chancellor dismissed the suit for a lack of jurisdiction.\nJurisdiction must be determined entirely from the pleadings, and if jurisdiction is not established by the pleadings, the court is not to proceed further. Department of Human Services v. Crunkleton, 303 Ark. 21, 791 S.W.2d 704 (1990). The complaint in this case is similar to the complaint filed in McKinney v. City of El Dorado, 308 Ark. 284, 824 S.W.2d 826 (1992), and supplemental opinion, 308 Ark. 288-A, 824 S.W.2d 826 at 828 (1992). In this suit, just as in McKinney v. City of El Dorado, the complaint, while lengthy, is conclusory in nature and neither sets out the itemized costs charged to appellant nor sets out the statutory costs which appellant contends were wrongfully collected. Just as in McKinney v. City of El Dorado, we cannot decide the issue of jurisdiction until the appellant alleges the specific facts upon which he bases his claims and, accordingly, we affirm the chancery court\u2019s dismissal but do so because of appellant\u2019s failure to meet the requirements of A.R.C.P. Rule 12(b)(6), and thus the dismissal is without prejudice.\nAffirmed as modified.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Anthony J. Sherman and Timothy Davis Fox, for appellants.",
      "Dailey, West, Core, Coffman, & Canfield, by: Wyman R. Wade, Jr., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jeff J. VACHON, On Behalf of Himself and All Persons Similarly Situated v. CITY OF FORT SMITH\n91-216\n826 S.W.2d 277\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 23, 1992\nAnthony J. Sherman and Timothy Davis Fox, for appellants.\nDailey, West, Core, Coffman, & Canfield, by: Wyman R. Wade, Jr., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0636-01",
  "first_page_order": 664,
  "last_page_order": 665
}