{
  "id": 3508895,
  "name": "ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES, and Booneville Human Development Center v. Betty STOREY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas Department of Health & Human Services v. Storey",
  "decision_date": "2008-01-17",
  "docket_number": "07-525",
  "first_page": "175",
  "last_page": "177",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "372 Ark. 175"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "271 S.W.3d 500"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "371 Ark. 308",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3491240
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/371/0308-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 21-1-605",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2004,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(5)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "372 Ark. 23",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3508644
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/372/0023-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 235,
    "char_count": 3158,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.811,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.09854821651764253
    },
    "sha256": "923d25b7b6c3e06a14c62d59e8c890f9d792d7d089a6591e3a5cce9cef07812a",
    "simhash": "1:0f35338a347964b3",
    "word_count": 505
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:19.424661+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES, and Booneville Human Development Center v. Betty STOREY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nOn December 13, 2007, we handed down Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services v. Storey, 372 Ark. 23, 269 S.W.3d 803 (2007), affirming the circuit court\u2019s postjudgment order that Appellants would not be released from two judgments and those judgments would not be deemed satisfied until the additional monies withheld as taxes, plus interest, were paid to Appellee Betty Storey. Now, Storey has filed a motion for attorneys\u2019 fees and costs incurred in the appeal of this case. Specifically, she argues that, as the prevailing party on this appeal, she is entitled to attorneys\u2019 fees and costs under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 21-1-605(5) (Repl. 2004), and Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-7(a).\nUnder Rule 6-7(a), where the order is affirmed, \u201c[t]he appellee may recover brief costs not to exceed $3.00 per page; total costs not to exceed $500.00.\u201d Here, Storey\u2019s brief totaled thirty-one pages at a cost of $93.00. As such, Storey\u2019s motion for costs totaling $93.00 is granted pursuant to our rules.\nAdditionally, Storey has requested attorneys\u2019 fees on appeal in the amount of $7,547.50 pursuant to section 21-1-605(5) of the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act. Section 21-1-605(5) provides, in pertinent part:\nA court in rendering judgment under this subchapter may order any or all of the following remedies:\n(5) The payment by the public employer of reasonable court costs and attorney\u2019s fees.\nThis court has consistently maintained that attorneys\u2019 fees are only allowed when authorized by statute. See Running M Farms, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co., 371 Ark. 308, 265 S.W.3d 740 (2007).\nStorey argues that, as the prevailing party on appeal, she is entitled to reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees pursuant to section 21-1-605(5). First, we point out that Storey is not \u201centitled\u201d to these fees because the decision to award these fees is discretionary. Second, we are not authorized to issue attorneys\u2019 fees in this case. Section 21-1-605(5) clearly sets forth that a court in rendering judgment under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act may order the public employer to pay reasonable attorneys\u2019 fees. This case came before us on an appeal from the circuit court\u2019s postjudgment order finding that the judgments awarded in Storey\u2019s whistle-blower cause of action would not be deemed satisfied until the additional monies withheld as taxes, plus interest, were paid by Appellants. While the postjudgment order appealed from was related to judgments entered pursuant to the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act, our judgment on appeal was not rendered under this act. Rather, it was decided based primarily upon federal and state income tax law. As such, section 21-1-605 is inapplicable and attorneys\u2019 fees are not warranted.\nCosts on appeal granted; attorneys\u2019 fees denied.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James E. Brader, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellants.",
      "Ledbetter, Cogbill, Arnold & Harrison, L.L.P., by: Rebecca D. Hattabaugh, R. Chris Parks, and Victor L. Crowell, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and HUMAN SERVICES, and Booneville Human Development Center v. Betty STOREY\n07-525\n271 S.W.3d 500\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 17, 2008\nJames E. Brader, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellants.\nLedbetter, Cogbill, Arnold & Harrison, L.L.P., by: Rebecca D. Hattabaugh, R. Chris Parks, and Victor L. Crowell, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0175-01",
  "first_page_order": 199,
  "last_page_order": 201
}