{
  "id": 243573,
  "name": "Sedrick Maurice SIMPSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Simpson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1999-09-09",
  "docket_number": "CR 98-423",
  "first_page": "511",
  "last_page": "512",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "338 Ark. 511"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "999 S.W.2d 181"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "327 Ark. 88",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        922631
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/327/0088-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 128,
    "char_count": 1233,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.742,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.009530864540751218
    },
    "sha256": "7311d884a03951486010549a1dc0d641d6771005ee37527e8b0a4ddf71cfb6f1",
    "simhash": "1:5b2f0c2c6adf96e8",
    "word_count": 208
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:43:54.470477+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Sedrick Maurice SIMPSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nFor the second time, the State moves this court to direct appellant Sedric Maurice Simpson to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3 (h). We granted the State\u2019s original motion on May 6, 1999. Simpson filed a brief on June 11, 1999, but the amended abstract still fails to comply with Rule 4-3 (h). Simpson has filed no response to the State\u2019s second motion.\nWe deny the State\u2019s motion and instead direct the State to file a supplemental abstract in compliance with Rule 4-3 (h) which is consistent with the State\u2019s burden under the rule to make certain and certify that all objections and adverse rulings be abstracted and all points argued by Simpson that appear to involve prejudicial error are briefed. The State\u2019s alternative request for a thirty-day extension is granted.\nUpon receipt of the supplemental abstract, we will review and determine whether defense counsel\u2019s name should be referred to the Committee on Professional Conduct. See McGehee v. State, 327 Ark. 88, 937 S.W.2d 632 (1992).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "No response.",
      "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Sedrick Maurice SIMPSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 98-423\n999 S.W.2d 181\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 9, 1999\nNo response.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0511-01",
  "first_page_order": 541,
  "last_page_order": 542
}