{
  "id": 1257771,
  "name": "James \"J.F.\" VALLEY v. David BOGARD, Judge",
  "name_abbreviation": "Valley v. Bogard",
  "decision_date": "2000-05-15",
  "docket_number": "00-539",
  "first_page": "305",
  "last_page": "305",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "341 Ark. 305"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "20 S.W.3d 272"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 143,
    "char_count": 1358,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.733,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0768207311960754e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5612939209969384
    },
    "sha256": "12747705aed8923573babd73b7f57b2f660f8c132a321b0ca39f3340bcf7a4fd",
    "simhash": "1:f83e06ea8e573227",
    "word_count": 232
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:03:19.609022+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James \u201cJ.F.\u201d VALLEY v. David BOGARD, Judge"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "PER CURIAM.\nMr. Valley files a motion for us to reconsider AM. per curiam issued on May 12, 2000, where we were compelled to deny his motion to stay and accelerate this proceeding because Mr. Valley failed to comply with Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Civil 3(e) (2000). In doing so, he failed to file a notice of appeal showing he had made financial arrangements for the preparation of the record, thus, making it impossible to expedite and decide Mr. Valley\u2019s appeal before the May 23, 2000, primary election.\nIn his reconsideration motion, Mr. Valley states he has filed an amended notice of appeal and refers to an attached exhibit A; however, such exhibit has not been attached. Nor does Mr. Valley\u2019s motion reflect a certificate of service showing opposing counsel or parties have been served. Again, while this court attempted to accelerate the proceeding with the thought of scheduling simultaneous briefs, it is powerless to do so in light of Mr. Valley\u2019s failure to comply with our civil appellate rules. We deny his motion for reconsideration.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "PER CURIAM."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Wilson & Valley, by: Jimmie L. Wilson, E. Dion Wilson, J.E Valley, Andre K. Valley, and Don R. Etherly, for appellant.",
      "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kelly S. Terry, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James \u201cJ.F.\u201d VALLEY v. David BOGARD, Judge\n00-539\n20 S.W.3d 272\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 15, 2000\nWilson & Valley, by: Jimmie L. Wilson, E. Dion Wilson, J.E Valley, Andre K. Valley, and Don R. Etherly, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kelly S. Terry, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0305-01",
  "first_page_order": 331,
  "last_page_order": 331
}