{
  "id": 1906029,
  "name": "J.T. JACKSON v. ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Jackson v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.",
  "decision_date": "1992-06-08",
  "docket_number": "92-511",
  "first_page": "572",
  "last_page": "574",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "309 Ark. 572"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "832 S.W.2d 224"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "305 Ark. 365",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1916682
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "368"
        },
        {
          "page": "925"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/305/0365-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 213,
    "char_count": 2896,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.893,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.2283715082698244e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9142162342283277
    },
    "sha256": "e04889ec05cef4e20133901cdef915ba4a35b757a8f222b96ca4a91c43e4b3b1",
    "simhash": "1:6c3d455f8a2e98fb",
    "word_count": 511
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:13:54.665869+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "J.T. JACKSON v. ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nOn December 4, 1991, the Jefferson County Chancery Court entered judgment against the appellant, J.T. Jackson, and found that Jackson had failed to prove that the road in question was a public road. On January 2,1992, Jackson filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment \u201cbecause it is contrary to the facts, the law, public policy and is clearly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence.\u201d In his motion, Jackson reargued the evidence and testimony and cited case law on prescriptive use and the establishment of public roads. On January 15,1992, the appellee, Arkansas Power and Light Company, argued in response that Jackson\u2019s motion was, in fact, a motion for a new trial under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59 and was untimely. AP&L further contended that Jackson failed to argue that the chancellor\u2019s judgment contained clerical errors or omissions or that it was obtained by fraud or that, through excusable neglect, Jackson had failed to offer newly discovered evidence at trial, all of which are grounds for relief under Ark. R. Civ. P. 60. Jackson replied that his motion was one \u201cto prevent a miscarriage of justice\u201d under Rule 60(b).\nThe chancellor did not rule on Jackson\u2019s motion to vacate, and on February 6,1992, Jackson filed a notice of appeal. AP&L moved to dismiss the appeal on May 15, 1992, on the basis that the appeal was untimely.\nWe agree that the appeal must be dismissed. Jackson\u2019s motion to vacate was couched in terms of a Rule 59 motion for a new trial. Rule 59(a)(6) provides for a new trial where \u201cthe verdict or decision is clearly contrary to the preponderance of the evidence or is contrary to the law.\u201d That ground precisely covers Jackson\u2019s argument and approximates the basis for relief set out in Jackson\u2019s own motion, as quoted above.\nNor can we agree with Jackson that his motion to vacate is, in reality, a Rule 60 motion to prevent a miscarriage of justice. Were we to interpret the term \u201cmiscarriage of justice\u201d expansively to embrace all grounds under Rule 59, Rule 59 would have no independent meaning. As we said in Phillips v. Jacobs, 305 Ark. 365, 368, 807 S.W.2d 923, 925 (1991):\u201c. . .Rule60under our Arkansas Rules should not be used to breathe life into an otherwise defunct Rule 59 motion.\u201d\nBecause Jackson\u2019s motion to vacate was in the nature of a motion for a new trial under Rule 59, it was required to be filed within ten days of judgment. See Ark. R. Civ. P. 59(b). This was not done. Since the motion to vacate did not extend the time for filing a notice of appeal under Ark. R. App. P. 4(b), the notice of appeal was required to be filed within thirty days of judgment. This also was not done. AP&L\u2019s motion, accordingly, has merit and the appeal is dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Purtle, for appellant.",
      "Jim L. Julian, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "J.T. JACKSON v. ARKANSAS POWER & LIGHT COMPANY\n92-511\n832 S.W.2d 224\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 8, 1992\nJohn Purtle, for appellant.\nJim L. Julian, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0572-01",
  "first_page_order": 598,
  "last_page_order": 600
}