{
  "id": 1342435,
  "name": "James A. FERGUSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ferguson v. State",
  "decision_date": "2000-10-05",
  "docket_number": "CR 99-999",
  "first_page": "273",
  "last_page": "274",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "342 Ark. 273"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "26 S.W.3d 787"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 153,
    "char_count": 1858,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.762,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.4822219722155224e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3435287153807037
    },
    "sha256": "939e8fd457d23bc27998a9a8b926b83b53e2d56e1b6d1e7a1a8cdaf017b17fa7",
    "simhash": "1:97082102ce983247",
    "word_count": 304
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:01:02.266586+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "James A. FERGUSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellee, State of Arkansas, filed the instant motion urging this court to reconsider our order granting appellant\u2019s motion for oral argument. In support of its position, the State contends that we granted appellant\u2019s request without the benefit of the State\u2019s response and prior to the time that such response was due. Further, the State claims that Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 5-1 (a) (2000), prohibits oral argument in this case. Rule 5-1 (a) provides, in part, that \u201c[a]ny party may request oral argument by filing, contemporaneously with that party\u2019s hriej, a letter, separate from the brief, stating the request with a copy to all parties.\u201d (Emphasis added.) The State\u2019s interpretation of the rule is that a party\u2019s request must accompany their initial appellate brief.\nIn response, appellant notes that the language of Rule 5-1(a) does not include such a limitation nor does this construction make sense. For example, an appellee may raise an argument in its reply brief that would influence an appellant\u2019s determination of whether an oral argument would \u201csignificantly aid the decision-making process.\u201d See Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 5-1 (a)(3). We agree. Here, appellant timely filed his request for oral argument contemporaneously with his reply brief. Accordingly, we deny the State\u2019s motion to reconsider our order granting oral argument.\nAppellant also argues that his request for oral argument would be timely if made within ten days of the last brief being due with the Court. We reject this interpretation of Rule 5-l(a). The request must be made contemporaneously with the brief.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Hampton, Larkowski & Benca, by: Patrick J. Benca, for appellant.",
      "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "James A. FERGUSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 99-999\n26 S.W.3d 787\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 5, 2000\nHampton, Larkowski & Benca, by: Patrick J. Benca, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0273-01",
  "first_page_order": 297,
  "last_page_order": 298
}