{ "id": 1910550, "name": "Donald Barry PENNINGTON v. Betty Bryant PENNINGTON", "name_abbreviation": "Pennington v. Pennington", "decision_date": "1994-01-10", "docket_number": "93-595", "first_page": "479", "last_page": "481", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "315 Ark. 479" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "868 S.W.2d 460" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "300 Ark. 570", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1886928 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/300/0570-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 Ark. 170", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1906099 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1992, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "831" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/309/0170-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 296, "char_count": 4061, "ocr_confidence": 0.869, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.544231677759272e-08, "percentile": 0.48775893884160815 }, "sha256": "dad2741b54b2ce5b0b7fce1d04aab9913db66de6af5ca309627d2a1d00a9e959", "simhash": "1:853a25d21dec14ca", "word_count": 652 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:39:34.144281+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Donald Barry PENNINGTON v. Betty Bryant PENNINGTON" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThis case, a chancery court appeal, was precipitated by an earlier circuit court case filed by Harvest Foods, Inc. against Don Pennington. In that case, Harvest Foods alleged that Pennington, Harvest Foods\u2019 CEO, and others collusively schemed to increase the price of Harvest Foods\u2019 products and that they wrongfully diverted part of those increased prices into an account held in the name of Capitol City Marketing, a company controlled by Pennington.\n. During discovery in the circuit court litigation, Harvest Foods deposed Pennington\u2019s former wife, Betty, who refused to respond or release any document which would divulge information covered by a protective order which had previously been entered in the Penningtons\u2019 divorce action. Harvest Foods filed a motion to compel Betty to produce all financial information it had requested in deposition, and the circuit judge granted Harvest Foods\u2019 motion. The judge, however, held his order compelling production in abeyance until Harvest Foods first asked the chancery court to release this same information under its earlier protective order. Accordingly, Harvest Foods intervened in the Penningtons\u2019 divorce action and requested the chancellor to rescind his protective order, which the judge did over Don\u2019s objection.\nDon subsequently brought this appeal from the chancery judge\u2019s order, rescinding the protective order entered in the Penningtons\u2019 divorce case, and argues the chancellor\u2019s ruling violates Don\u2019s Fifth Amendment privilege. The parties agree that, while this matter was pending on appeal, no stay of the chancellor\u2019s order was requested or granted and that Harvest Foods now has possession of the information it had requested of Betty Pennington.\nHarvest Foods first argues that this appeal is moot because the information it sought has been released and because Harvest Foods now has that information, there is nothing left to litigate. We must agree.\nThis court has held that a case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then existing legal controversy. Arkansas Intercollegiate Conference v. Parnham, 309 Ark. 170, 828 S.W.2d 828 (1992). There are exceptions to the doctrine of mootness, see Campbell v. State, 300 Ark. 570, 781 S.W.2d 14 (1989), but none of those exceptions require us to decide this case. See also Arkansas Intercollegiate Conference, 309 at 174, 828 S.W.2d at 831.\nAlthough Don Pennington argues the court\u2019s decision in this appeal could have a legal effect on his case against Harvest Foods now pending in circuit court, we point out that at least part of the argument made by Pennington in this appeal is only applicable to the chancery court matter, and the manner in which it procedurally arose in that court after having been referred by the circuit court judge. In addition, we simply are unable to predict the exact issues that may arise in the parties\u2019 pending : circuit court litigation or how that court might rule on those matters. Accordingly, we affirm this case on appeal because of mootness.\nIn oral argument, Pennington also suggested that a public interest exists in receiving guidance concerning what a trial court should do in deciding when to enter a protective order and on what basis that order may be rescinded. Again, we see the issue posed as one which is largely peculiar to the facts as they were developed below, and while the issue may be of great interest to Mr. Pennington and of some interest to a few others, we fail to see how the case involves the public interest as this court has required in its prior cases; nor do we view the issue as one involving a significant legal principle.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Perroni Law Firm, by: Rita S. Looney and Samuel A. Perroni, for appellant.", "Wilson, Engstrom, Corum, Dudley & Coulter, by: Stephen Engs'trom, for appellee Harvest Foods.", "Kaplan, Brewer & Maxey, by: Philip E. Kaplan, for appellee Betty Pennington." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Donald Barry PENNINGTON v. Betty Bryant PENNINGTON\n93-595\n868 S.W.2d 460\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 10, 1994\nThe Perroni Law Firm, by: Rita S. Looney and Samuel A. Perroni, for appellant.\nWilson, Engstrom, Corum, Dudley & Coulter, by: Stephen Engs'trom, for appellee Harvest Foods.\nKaplan, Brewer & Maxey, by: Philip E. Kaplan, for appellee Betty Pennington." }, "file_name": "0479-01", "first_page_order": 511, "last_page_order": 513 }