{
  "id": 3713098,
  "name": "Gary KYZAR v. CITY of WEST MEMPHIS, Arkansas; Billy Johnson, Mayor; The West Memphis Advertising and Promotion Commission; and Frank Waggener, Chairman",
  "name_abbreviation": "Kyzar v. City of West Memphis",
  "decision_date": "2004-11-04",
  "docket_number": "04-338",
  "first_page": "366",
  "last_page": "368",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "359 Ark. 366"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "197 S.W.3d 502"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "345 Ark. Appx. 626",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App'x",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2001,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "357 Ark. 644",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        5405052
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/357/0644-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 3325,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.787,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.367580651059073e-08,
      "percentile": 0.441824407523373
    },
    "sha256": "f5d01624485c1d8af1e94a534bdf6521d6a91694dd41a943296f7d14a473beef",
    "simhash": "1:b3a6f20703258932",
    "word_count": 530
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:12:09.658813+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Gary KYZAR v. CITY of WEST MEMPHIS, Arkansas; Billy Johnson, Mayor; The West Memphis Advertising and Promotion Commission; and Frank Waggener, Chairman"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant, Gary Kyzar, appeals the decision of the Crittenden Circuit Court a motion to dismiss of appellees, City ofWest Memphis et al. This case concerns a petition for referendum on an ordinance imposing a one-cent \u201chamburger\u201d tax in West Memphis.\nAlthough not raised by either party, we do not reach the merits of this case because of a failure to comply with our addendum requirements. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-1 and 4-2 (2004). We raise issues of deficiencies sua sponte. Branscumb v. Freeman, 357 Ark. 644, 187 S.W.3d 846 (2004).\nArkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) provides that the addendum shall include copies of the \u201corder, judgment, decree . . . from which the appeal is taken, along with any other relevant pleadings, documents, or exhibits essential to an understanding of the case and the court\u2019s jurisdiction on appeal.\u201d Id.\nHere, appellant\u2019s addendum includes Ordinance 2072, petition for referendum, two letter opinions from the Attorney General, order of partial dismissal, notice of appeal, stipulation of counsel, and exhibits. In the order of partial dismissal from which appellant brings his appeal, the trial court states:\nIt is therefore considered, ordered, and adjudged that:\n1. The petition on Ordinance 2072 is fatally flawed and cannot be set for a referendum election.\n2. Count II of plaintiffs first amended and substituted complaint is therefore dismissed with prejudice.\n3. Plaintiffs oral motion for an injunction halting the collection of the tax imposed by Ordinance 29072 [sic] is denied as moot.\n4. Defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss count II of plaintiffs first amended and substituted complaint and defendant\u2019s motion to strike plaintiff s reply brief as untimely are denied as moot.\nThe trial court\u2019s rulings are based upon appellant\u2019s first amended and substituted complaint and upon appellant\u2019s motion to dismiss. However, appellant\u2019s addendum does not contain appellant\u2019s first amended and substituted complaint, appellees\u2019 answer, appellees\u2019 motion to dismiss, or any response to it. Further, appellees do not provide a supplemental addendum. Therefore, because appellant\u2019s brief fails to include the relevant documents, we find it to be deficient such that we cannot reach the merits of the case.\nAppellant has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted addendum to conform to Rule 4-2 (a) (8). See In re: Modification of the Abstracting System \u2014 Amendments to Supreme Court Rule 2-3, 4-2, 4-3, and 4-4, 345 Ark. Appx. 626 (2001) (per curiam); Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2004). If appellant fails to file a complying addendum within the prescribed time, the judgment may be affirmed for noncompliance with our rules. Id. After service of the substituted brief on the appellees, they shall have an opportunity to file a responsive brief in the time prescribed by the Supreme Court Clerk, or to rely upon appellee\u2019s brief that was previously filed in this appeal. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4 \u2014 2(b)(3); Branscumb, supra.\nRebriefing ordered.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Everett & Hunter, by; Mike Everett, for appellant.",
      "Erica Ross, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gary KYZAR v. CITY of WEST MEMPHIS, Arkansas; Billy Johnson, Mayor; The West Memphis Advertising and Promotion Commission; and Frank Waggener, Chairman\n04-338\n197 S.W.3d 502\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 4, 2004\nEverett & Hunter, by; Mike Everett, for appellant.\nErica Ross, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0366-01",
  "first_page_order": 388,
  "last_page_order": 390
}