{
  "id": 5683352,
  "name": "Thomas Arthur JOHNSON a Minor, by and Through Luwalhati Admana Johnson, His Mother and Legal Guardian, Next Friend, and Attorney v. Virginia HARGROVE and Molly Acuff-Willroth, Personally and As School Teachers, and Curtis Spann, Personally and As Principal of Helen Tyson Middle School, Springdale, Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson ex rel. Johnson v. Hargrove",
  "decision_date": "2005-03-03",
  "docket_number": "04-1055",
  "first_page": "109",
  "last_page": "110",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "361 Ark. 109"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "204 S.W.3d 520"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 217,
    "char_count": 2825,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.743,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.3342168581885638e-07,
      "percentile": 0.6179592711045483
    },
    "sha256": "d5ef3c2ff395c67858e31c0453abe9d1c4bdb85e1b35385fd28ec478b0694a30",
    "simhash": "1:1eb2533d916cc535",
    "word_count": 474
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:38:22.368604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Thomas Arthur JOHNSON a Minor, by and Through Luwalhati Admana Johnson, His Mother and Legal Guardian, Next Friend, and Attorney v. Virginia HARGROVE and Molly Acuff-Willroth, Personally and As School Teachers, and Curtis Spann, Personally and As Principal of Helen Tyson Middle School, Springdale, Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nOn June 22, 2004, the Washington County Circuit Court entered an order in favor of the appellees in this case. On July 14, 2004, Luwalhati Admana Johnson filed a notice of appeal as legal guardian and attorney for her minor son, Thomas Arthur Johnson. On December 1, 2004, Johnson, as legal guardian, attempted to file her appellant\u2019s brief and, at the same time, filed a motion in this court to allow a seven-day correction period to begin on January 20, 2005, if the brief was rejected as nonconforming. Also on December 1, 2004, Johnson and her son departed the United States and traveled to the Philippines. On December 1, 2004, according to the docket sheet, Johnson\u2019s brief indeed was rejected, because the abstract contained \u201cAbstracted pleadings,\u201d there was no testimony in the abstract, and the exhibits were \u201cout of place.\u201d On December 2, 2004, the docket sheet also reflects that \u201cThis event was tickled for 12/08/04,\u201d which we interpret to mean that the Supreme Court Clerk\u2019s office granted Johnson seven calendar days to file a corrected brief pursuant to Ride 4-4(f)(l) of the Arkansas Supreme Court Rules. On January 6, 2005, this court without comment denied Johnson\u2019s motion for extension of time to correct her brief.\nOn January 19, 2005, Johnson and her son returned to the United States. Johnson now claims that she did not receive notice of the rejected brief until January 28, 2005. On February 1, 2005, she filed this motion for rule on clerk, admitting that her brief failed to conform to this court\u2019s rules. Johnson excuses her failure to abstract testimony because she contends that \u201conly discussions and/or arguments between counsel and the trial court\u201d occurred at trial. She further claims that she has placed the exhibits in the Addendum. Hargrove does not respond.\nWe treat this motion for rule on clerk as a motion to file a corrected brief. Under Rule 4-2(b)(3) of our Supreme Court Rules, this court has the authority to grant fifteen days for rebriefing of a nonconforming brief. We grantjohnson fifteen days from the date of this opinion to cure the deficiencies by filing a corrected abstract, Addendum, and brief to conform to Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (8) of those rules. Should she not do so, the order may be affirmed due to noncompliance with our rules. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2004).\nMotion for corrected brief granted.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lynn Johnson, for appellant.",
      "Charles Harwell, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Thomas Arthur JOHNSON a Minor, by and Through Luwalhati Admana Johnson, His Mother and Legal Guardian, Next Friend, and Attorney v. Virginia HARGROVE and Molly Acuff-Willroth, Personally and As School Teachers, and Curtis Spann, Personally and As Principal of Helen Tyson Middle School, Springdale, Arkansas\n04-1055\n204 S.W.3d 520\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 3, 2005\nLynn Johnson, for appellant.\nCharles Harwell, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0109-01",
  "first_page_order": 129,
  "last_page_order": 130
}