{
  "id": 1449525,
  "name": "Donald L. McPEEK and Mary Louise Heroman McPeek v. WHITE RIVER LODGE ENTERPRISES, Mr. and Mrs. James B. Flowers, Mr. and Mrs. Timothy G. Mancuso, and Mr. and Mrs. Lewis C. Moore",
  "name_abbreviation": "McPeek v. White River Lodge Enterprises",
  "decision_date": "1995-09-18",
  "docket_number": "93-1267",
  "first_page": "565",
  "last_page": "566",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "321 Ark. 565"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "905 S.W.2d 70"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 147,
    "char_count": 1562,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.895,
    "sha256": "502a520ffebc8b5881e14c4e0afdff173bef5204da578bf99d04d6bdbcb29226",
    "simhash": "1:186688862960dae0",
    "word_count": 256
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:21:00.559388+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Donald L. McPEEK and Mary Louise Heroman McPeek v. WHITE RIVER LODGE ENTERPRISES, Mr. and Mrs. James B. Flowers, Mr. and Mrs. Timothy G. Mancuso, and Mr. and Mrs. Lewis C. Moore"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellants timely appealed from the Carroll County Chancery Court\u2019s judgment, and on appeal, the appellants\u2019 brief was scheduled due on July 23, 1995. While this appeal was pending, appellants apparently caused a writ of execution to be issued below, seeking satisfaction of the trial court\u2019s judgment, and as a result, appellees assert the appellants\u2019 judgment has been satisfied in full. Appellees now move to dismiss appellants\u2019 appeal, stating the appellants have accepted the benefits of their judgment. Appellants respond, asserting among other things that their having accepted benefits of a judgment alleged to be inadequate is not a waiver of their right to appeal. Appellants also move to stay the briefing schedule in this appeal, so a corrected or supplemental record can be filed.\nFirst, we grant appellants\u2019 motion to stay and remand this cause to the trial court to settle the record under Ark. R. App. P. 6(e). Second, we direct the parties to include along with the other points on appeal the issue raised in appellees\u2019 motion to dismiss appeal. Appellants shall have thirty days from the date of this per curiam to file a supplemental record and their brief shall be due thirty days thereafter.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Kenneth H. Castleberry, for appellants.",
      "David R. Matthews, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Donald L. McPEEK and Mary Louise Heroman McPeek v. WHITE RIVER LODGE ENTERPRISES, Mr. and Mrs. James B. Flowers, Mr. and Mrs. Timothy G. Mancuso, and Mr. and Mrs. Lewis C. Moore\n93-1267\n905 S.W.2d 70\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 18, 1995\nKenneth H. Castleberry, for appellants.\nDavid R. Matthews, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0565-01",
  "first_page_order": 615,
  "last_page_order": 616
}