{
  "id": 1155489,
  "name": "Teresa DAVIS v. Corliss M. WILLIAMSON",
  "name_abbreviation": "Davis v. Williamson",
  "decision_date": "2003-05-15",
  "docket_number": "03-399",
  "first_page": "225",
  "last_page": "226",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "353 Ark. 225"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "114 S.W.3d 216"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "271 Ark. 911",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1756061
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/271/0911-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "281 Ark. 38",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1742276
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/281/0038-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "287 Ark. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1876615
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/287/0384-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 223,
    "char_count": 2885,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.708,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.030112139409414e-07,
      "percentile": 0.9367136848518968
    },
    "sha256": "886eb56cdbffb4086aa406916baa0a963af2824728c4eedd1b68d782caa3c9d1",
    "simhash": "1:5c7ad37b6406d994",
    "word_count": 490
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T16:12:52.629354+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Corbin, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Teresa DAVIS v. Corliss M. WILLIAMSON"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant Teresa Davis, by and through her attorney Vandell Bland, Jr., has filed a motion for rule on the clerk. We deny the motion.\nOn September 11, 2002, the Washington County Circuit Court entered a final judgment in this case. On October 9, 2002, Bland filed a notice of appeal naming the opposing party, Corliss Williamson, as Bland\u2019s client and purporting to appeal on Williamson\u2019s behalf. Two days later, apparently realizing his mistake, Bland filed an amended notice of appeal on October 11, 2002, this time correctly naming Davis as his client and as the appealing party.\nOn January 7, 2003, Bland faxed to the trial court a motion to extend the time to file the transcript. That same day, the trial court held a telephone conference with counsel for Williamson. Bland had represented to the trial court that he would be available for the conference call, but was not in attendance. The trial court subsequently granted Bland\u2019s motion for extension of time, giving him until April 9, 2003, to have the transcript completed and filed with the supreme court clerk. However, the trial court\u2019s order was not entered until the next day, January 8, 2003, which was ninety-one days after the filing of the first notice of appeal on October 9, 2002.\nUnder Ark. R. App. P. \u2014 Civ. 5(b), any order extending the time to complete the transcript \u201cmust be entered before the expiration of the period for filing as originally prescribed\u201d; under Rule (a), this is \u201cninety days from the filing of the first notice of appeal.\u201d Although Bland blames the trial court for not entering the order until the ninety-first day, \u201cit is the duty of counsel, not the judge, not the clerk, not the reporter, to perfect an appeal.\u201d Perry v. State, 287 Ark. 384, 699 S.W.2d 739 (1985) (per curiam); Finley v. State, 281 Ark. 38, 661 S.W.2d 358 (1983). Any extension must be filed within the specified time. Christopher v. Jones, 271 Ark. 911, 611 S.W.2d 521 (1981). It was Bland\u2019s responsibility to see to it that all orders were timely filed. He failed in that responsibility, and for that reason, the motion for rule on the clerk must be denied.\nCorbin, J., not participating.\nAlso, Williamson\u2019s counsel points out that, besides Mr. Bland\u2019s failure to participate in the telephone conference, held so that the trial court could rule on Bland\u2019s motion which was faxed and received by the court on January 7, Davis\u2019s attorneys in the trial court are not her attorneys on appeal. Since those trial attorneys are located in northwest Arkansas, they could have been asked to file the court\u2019s extension order immediately after the judge signed it.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Vandell Bland, Sr., for appellant.",
      "Quattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow, PLLC, by; John E. Tull, III and E.B. Chiles IV, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Teresa DAVIS v. Corliss M. WILLIAMSON\n03-399\n114 S.W.3d 216\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 15, 2003\nVandell Bland, Sr., for appellant.\nQuattlebaum, Grooms, Tull & Burrow, PLLC, by; John E. Tull, III and E.B. Chiles IV, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0225-01",
  "first_page_order": 249,
  "last_page_order": 250
}