{
  "id": 1447551,
  "name": "DIXON TICONDEROGA COMPANY v. WINBURN TILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Dixon Ticonderoga Co. v. Winburn Tile Manufacturing Co.",
  "decision_date": "1995-12-18",
  "docket_number": "95-812",
  "first_page": "817",
  "last_page": "818",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "322 Ark. 817"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "911 S.W.2d 955"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 122,
    "char_count": 1565,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.818,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0463145471458043e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5521397193427107
    },
    "sha256": "5582e36a98049a3b6ca1541523ff1c16305db9c23b8a073a4838c526926ade52",
    "simhash": "1:7ba64b7301cf6899",
    "word_count": 265
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:17:32.217899+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "DIXON TICONDEROGA COMPANY v. WINBURN TILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nThe appellant, Dixon Ticonderoga Co., filed its abstract and brief in this case. The Winburn Tile Manufacturing Co. filed the appellee\u2019s brief. Prior to the time appellant\u2019s reply brief was due, the appellant\u2019s attorney realized that the abstract was insufficient to address an issue raised by appellee in its brief, and filed a motion asking that he be allowed to supplement appellant\u2019s abstract. 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 4-2(b)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court provides that, when it does not cause an unreasonable or unjust delay in the disposition of an appeal, an appellant\u2019s attorney may be allowed time to revise his brief, at his own expense, to conform to Rule 4-2(a)(6); however, he may not simply address the new issue in his reply brief, as the rule requires that appellee be afforded the opportunity to revise or supplement its brief. 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": [
      "Allen Law Firm, by: H. William Allen, for appellant.",
      "John E. Tull, III, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "DIXON TICONDEROGA COMPANY v. WINBURN TILE MANUFACTURING COMPANY\n95-812\n911 S.W.2d 955\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 18, 1995\nAllen Law Firm, by: H. William Allen, for appellant.\nJohn E. Tull, III, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0817-01",
  "first_page_order": 843,
  "last_page_order": 844
}