{
  "id": 377582,
  "name": "Nelson MURDERS, Jr., Lester Bates, Vernon Blake, and James Stark v. GARLAND COUNTY, Arkansas, and Larry Williams, as Garland County Judge",
  "name_abbreviation": "Murders v. Garland County",
  "decision_date": "1998-04-23",
  "docket_number": "97-871",
  "first_page": "659",
  "last_page": "661",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "332 Ark. 659"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "966 S.W.2d 900"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "329 Ark. 42",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        236239
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/329/0042-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "328 Ark. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        50420
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1997,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/328/0061-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 166",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871166
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "appellants sought mandamus challenging statutory validity of municipal ordinances - abstract was flagrantly deficient due to failure to abstract ordinances despite portions of ordinances contained in appellants' brief"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "appellants sought mandamus challenging statutory validity of municipal ordinances - abstract was flagrantly deficient due to failure to abstract ordinances despite portions of ordinances contained in appellants' brief"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0166-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 2760,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.2240919645422112e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5994710502426975
    },
    "sha256": "5a619008fa535f48f6429b41b6fa465d08f41a18371593faef71fe12cd10b378",
    "simhash": "1:f39c9065141a5b30",
    "word_count": 436
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:57.770497+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Nelson MURDERS, Jr., Lester Bates, Vernon Blake, and James Stark v. GARLAND COUNTY, Arkansas, and Larry Williams, as Garland County Judge"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.\nAt the center of this appeal are a number of ordinances enacted by the Garland County Quorum Court creating and implementing a new solid waste collection system for unincorporated areas of the county. The County excluded Hot Springs Village from required participation in the system. Following the initiation of a declaratory judgment action by the appellants, the trial court granted summary judgment to the County, upholding the constitutionality of the ordinances. Among other things, appellants now contend that the exclusion of Hot Springs Village constitutes a denial of equal protection of the laws. Appellants also argue that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in that material facts were in dispute and that summary judgment was premature as they were entitled to more discovery. Pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b), we affirm due to appellants\u2019 flagrantly deficient abstract.\nIn their brief, appellants purport to challenge the constitutionality of five separate ordinances, yet have failed to abstract any of them. See Blount v. Hughes, 292 Ark. 166, 728 S.W.2d 519 (1987) (appellants sought mandamus challenging statutory validity of municipal ordinances \u2014 abstract was flagrantly deficient due to failure to abstract ordinances despite portions of ordinances contained in appellants\u2019 brief). Only two sentences from an ordinance can be found in the abstract (contained in the abstract of appellants\u2019 complaint), although the specific ordinance is not identified.\nThe other remarkable deficiency of appellants\u2019 abstract, considering that this is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment, is the failure to abstract any of the evidence' in the case, including affidavits that were submitted by parties on both sides. Without the benefit of such evidence, it is impossible for the court to determine if genuine issues of material fact exist, or if summary judgment was granted prematurely.\nThe reason for our rule is one of practicality in that there is only one transcript to be spread among seven members of the court. See Oliver v. Washington County, 328 Ark. 61, 940 S.W.2d 884 (1997). It is impossible for each of the seven judges to examine the one transcript. Id. Given the state of appellants\u2019 abstract, we are precluded from an understanding of the issues on appeal. See Porter v. Porter, 329 Ark. 42, 945 S.W.2d 376 (1997).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hurst Law Office, P.A., by: Q. Byrum Hurst, for appellant.",
      "Ralph C. Ohm, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Nelson MURDERS, Jr., Lester Bates, Vernon Blake, and James Stark v. GARLAND COUNTY, Arkansas, and Larry Williams, as Garland County Judge\n97-871\n966 S.W.2d 900\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 23, 1998\n[Petition for rehearing denied June 4, 1998.]\nHurst Law Office, P.A., by: Q. Byrum Hurst, for appellant.\nRalph C. Ohm, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0659-01",
  "first_page_order": 685,
  "last_page_order": 687
}