{
  "id": 9160632,
  "name": "Rammie Earl HALL v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hall v. State",
  "decision_date": "1996-05-13",
  "docket_number": "CR 95-166",
  "first_page": "431",
  "last_page": "433",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "324 Ark. 431"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "921 S.W.2d 929"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 132,
    "char_count": 1638,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.802,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.061447019797991e-08,
      "percentile": 0.31970531872707636
    },
    "sha256": "a8be3052b5389a240c926ba08b5499689f6a95f0530abfe1e0e811aa22a9e2f3",
    "simhash": "1:3dddc97c35e2dca6",
    "word_count": 278
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:22:54.921906+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "DUDLEY, J., not participating.",
      "Glaze, J., dissents."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Rammie Earl HALL v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per CURIAM.\nOn October 11, 1995, appellant Rammie Earl Hall filed his brief pro se in his appeal from a denial of Rule 37 relief. On January 3, 1996, the State filed its brief and pointed out that Hall had failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 4-2 (a) (6) in preparing its abstract. Hall then sought permission from this court to substitute a brief for the purpose of correcting the abstract in his brief, and permission was granted by per curiam order on January 16, 1996. On February 26, 1996, Hall filed his new brief.\nThe State now contends that Hall not only corrected his abstract but rewrote the argument portion in his substituted brief as well and that it has no opportunity to respond to the rewrite. The State asks for permission to strike the rewritten brief completely or, alternatively, that this court only consider the original brief filed by Hall.\nWe agree with the State that in his substituted brief Hall corrected his abstract and rewrote his argument. Accordingly, we grant the State\u2019s motion as it relates to the argument in the substituted brief.\nWith respect to the corrected abstract, we direct the Clerk of this court to replace the abstract in Hall\u2019s original brief with the substituted abstract so that the appellant\u2019s brief submitted to this court will contain the substituted abstract and the original argument.\nDUDLEY, J., not participating.\nGlaze, J., dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Appellant, Pro Se.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Deputy Att\u2019y Gen., Sr. Appellate Advocate for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Rammie Earl HALL v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 95-166\n921 S.W.2d 929\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 13, 1996\nAppellant, Pro Se.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Deputy Att\u2019y Gen., Sr. Appellate Advocate for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0431-01",
  "first_page_order": 455,
  "last_page_order": 457
}