{
  "id": 5568399,
  "name": "Penney HEARD v. REGIONS BANK",
  "name_abbreviation": "Heard v. Regions Bank",
  "decision_date": "2007-05-24",
  "docket_number": "06-1040",
  "first_page": "117",
  "last_page": "118",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "370 Ark. 117"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "257 S.W.3d 543"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "369 Ark. 274",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        4016412
      ],
      "weight": 5,
      "year": 2007,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "per curiam"
        },
        {
          "page": "277"
        },
        {
          "page": "424"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/369/0274-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 186,
    "char_count": 2532,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.766,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.8591662004228935e-08,
      "percentile": 0.366277145887656
    },
    "sha256": "0669b8582dfa93ac7324ed765cdd5f2472598b8ba2c8c5cdb60ad456be672d12",
    "simhash": "1:ab4ffaf5215bceba",
    "word_count": 412
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:32:56.927728+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Penney HEARD v. REGIONS BANK"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam;.\nIn a per curiam order dated March 15, 2007, we found certain deficiencies in Appellant\u2019s addendum and record. We remanded the case to settle the record pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civil 6(e), stating it would be \u201cmanifestly unjust for the appeal to be dismissed . . . without giving Heard an opportunity to supply the deficiency.\u201d Heard v. Regions Bank, 369 Ark. 274, 253 S.W.3d 422 (2007) (per curiam). Specifically, we said:\nFurther, because of Heard\u2019s omission in the record, she has failed to include \u201crelevant pleadings\u201d in violation of Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4 \u2014 2(a)(8), which provides that \u201can Addendum shall include true and legible photocopies of the order . . . 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 Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4 \u2014 2(a) (8) (2006).\nId. at 277, 253 S.W.3d at 424. Finally, we explained that Heard\u2019s failure to file an addendum within fifteen days of completion of the record may result in our affirming the circuit court\u2019s judgment for noncompliance.\nNow Appellee Regions Bank urges us to dismiss the appeal, claiming our March 15, 2007 order required appellant to file her supplemental brief by April 28, 2007. Heard responds saying Regions misspeaks and that our order required her to file a substituted addendum within fifteen days.\nOur order clearly required Heard to settle the record by including \u201cthe order from which the appeal is taken along with relevant pleadings, documents, or exhibits essential to an understanding of the case and the Court\u2019s jurisdiction on appeal.\u201d Heard, supra. We emphasized that pleadings from the district court needed on appeal included Heard\u2019s complaint, Regions\u2019s answer, and the district court\u2019s order granting dismissal. We further said that those items were critical to Heard\u2019s argument.\nWe have given Heard the opportunity to supplement the record. On April 13, 2007, the record on remand was filed. By the terms of our March 15, 2007 order, Heard\u2019s supplement to the addendum was due on April 28, 2007. From a review of the clerk\u2019s docket sheet, Heard failed to supplement the addendum within the prescribed time limits. As we suggested in our March 15, 2007, order, we therefore affirm the circuit court\u2019s judgment.\nAppeal dismissed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam;."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stephen P. Westerfield, for appellant.",
      "John T. Vines, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Penney HEARD v. REGIONS BANK\n06-1040\n257 S.W.3d 543\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 24, 2007\nStephen P. Westerfield, for appellant.\nJohn T. Vines, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0117-01",
  "first_page_order": 141,
  "last_page_order": 142
}