{
  "id": 8153149,
  "name": "Ryan WHITESIDE v. RUSSELLVILLE NEWSPAPERS, INC.; Paxton Media Group, LLC; Neal Ronquist; Scott Perkins; and Janie Ginocchio",
  "name_abbreviation": "Whiteside v. Russellville Newspapers, Inc.",
  "decision_date": "2008-12-11",
  "docket_number": "08-313",
  "first_page": "245",
  "last_page": "247",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "375 Ark. 245"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "289 S.W.3d 461"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 232,
    "char_count": 3951,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.752,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.395996621871684e-08,
      "percentile": 0.44257387206744486
    },
    "sha256": "3b4a4fc8ae3a4eb9b0626c2025c620622b90fec64d092de80d3c6c089f5a3080",
    "simhash": "1:7bb0c36917a87fa9",
    "word_count": 642
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:36:16.941269+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ryan WHITESIDE v. RUSSELLVILLE NEWSPAPERS, INC.; Paxton Media Group, LLC; Neal Ronquist; Scott Perkins; and Janie Ginocchio"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant Ryan Whiteside appeals from the circuit court\u2019s order granting summary judgment to appel-lees Russellville Newspapers, Inc.; Paxton Media Group, LLC; Neal Ronquist; Scott Perkins; and Janie Ginoccio. Mr. Whiteside further appeals from the circuit court\u2019s order denying his motion for new trial. Because Mr. Whiteside submitted a brief without a proper addendum in violation of Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) (2008), we order rebriefing.\nRule 4-2(a)(8) provides, in pertinent part:\nFollowing the signature and certificate of service, the appellant\u2019s brief shall contain an Addendum which shall include true and legible photocopies of the order, judgment, decree, ruling, letter opinion, or Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission opinion 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.\nArk. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8). The procedure to be followed when an appellant has submitted an insufficient abstract or addendum is set forth in Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3):\nWhether or not the appellee has called attention to deficiencies in the appellant\u2019s abstract or Addendum, the Court may address the question at any time. If the Court finds the abstract or Addendum to be deficient such that the Court cannot reach the merits of the case, or such as to cause an unreasonable or unjust delay in the disposition of the appeal, the Court will notify the appellant that he or she will be afforded an opportunity to cure any deficiencies, and has fifteen days within which to file a substituted abstract, Addendum, and brief, at his or her own expense, to conform to Rule 4-2 (a)(5) and (8). Mere modifications of the original brief by the appellant, as by interlineation, will not be accepted by the Clerk. Upon the filing of such a substituted brief by the appellant, the appellee will be afforded an opportunity to revise or supplement the brief, at the expense of the appellant or the appellant\u2019s counsel, as the Court may direct. If after the opportunity to cure the deficiencies, the appellant fails to file a complying abstract, Addendum and brief within the prescribed time, the judgment or decree may be affirmed for noncompliance with the Rule.\nArk. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).\nHere, Mr. Whiteside\u2019s brief is deficient due to the fact that his addendum lacks relevant pleadings essential to an understanding of the case. While the appellees abstracted the hearing on the motion for summary judgment and provided their motion for summary judgment in their supplemental addendum, Mr. White-side\u2019s addendum lacks certain pleadings, including, but not limited to, the appellees\u2019 answer to his complaint, their brief in support of their motion for summary judgment, his response to their motion and brief in support, their reply to his response, and his response to their reply to his initial response.\nBecause Mr. Whiteside has failed to comply with our rules, we order him to file a substituted abstract, addendum, and brief within fifteen days from the date of entry of this order. If Mr. Whiteside fails to do so within the prescribed time, the judgment appealed from may be affirmed for noncompliance with Rule 4-2. After service of the substituted abstract, addendum, and brief, the appellees shall have an opportunity to revise or supplement their brief in the time prescribed by the clerk.\nRebriefing ordered.\nWe note that it was Mr. Whiteside\u2019s responsibility, as the appellant, to abstract the summary-judgment hearing. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5). While the appellees did provide a supplemental abstract, we offer no opinion on the sufficiency of that abstract.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Henry Clay Moore, for appellant."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ryan WHITESIDE v. RUSSELLVILLE NEWSPAPERS, INC.; Paxton Media Group, LLC; Neal Ronquist; Scott Perkins; and Janie Ginocchio\n08-313\n289 S.W.3d 461\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 11, 2008\nHenry Clay Moore, for appellant."
  },
  "file_name": "0245-01",
  "first_page_order": 275,
  "last_page_order": 277
}