{
  "id": 369218,
  "name": "Lamont BOWDEN v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bowden v. State",
  "decision_date": "1996-07-08",
  "docket_number": "CR 95-1258",
  "first_page": "316",
  "last_page": "316",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "325 Ark. 316"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "925 S.W.2d 158"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 110,
    "char_count": 1024,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.782,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0446031217563963e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7494626134573869
    },
    "sha256": "874857c4f1b648d0f5a0c5c36d4ab757f19c93ddc76dd1da84538893694f8019",
    "simhash": "1:5b90083901dfb426",
    "word_count": 167
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:33:21.718216+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Lamont BOWDEN v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nDefense counsel, Ronald Carey Nichols, appeared on July 1, 1996, in response to this court\u2019s order to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of this court\u2019s four prior orders to file appellant\u2019s brief. Upon his appearance, Mr. Nichols concedes he had previously failed to file appellant\u2019s brief, but had done so on Friday, June 28, 1996. He asserted his failure to file a timely brief was not willful.\nMr. Nichols offered what he called \u201cextenuating circumstances\u201d concerning the hospitalization of an infant daughter, who has cerebral palsy and was in a live-or-die status during this same period when appellant\u2019s brief was due. We consider those statements in mitigation of Nichols\u2019 failure to file a timely brief, and if Mr. Nichols files an affidavit formally verifying those statements, we direct no further action is necessary.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Ronald Carey Nichols, for appellant.",
      "No response."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Lamont BOWDEN v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 95-1258\n925 S.W.2d 158\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 8, 1996\nRonald Carey Nichols, for appellant.\nNo response."
  },
  "file_name": "0316-01",
  "first_page_order": 340,
  "last_page_order": 340
}