{
  "id": 8724058,
  "name": "Ex parte Clark",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ex parte Clark",
  "decision_date": "1901-06-29",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "435",
  "last_page": "436",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ark. 435"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "1 Wash. T. 153",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Wash. Terr.",
      "case_ids": [
        784302
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/wash-terr/1/0153-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "48 Md. 592",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Md.",
      "case_ids": [
        1820685
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/md/48/0592-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "30 Ark. 665",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881154,
        1881127
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/30/0665-01",
        "/ark/30/0665-02"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "36 Ark. 200",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872472
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/36/0200-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ark. 420",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1864514
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/25/0420-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ark. 95",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8726431
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/26/0095-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "26 Ark. 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    },
    {
      "cite": "43 Ark. 61",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": -1
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2095,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.46,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 5.952632457360457e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3709092692276654
    },
    "sha256": "45d019cfc59d7ecf5f5f28e68f1e6d6361643e6438709b370ae368fd256576c4",
    "simhash": "1:9e69bf3bde446470",
    "word_count": 375
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:49:09.426821+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ex parte Clark."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Buxx, C. J.\nThis is an appeal from an order of the county court refusing to issue a whisky license. The petition was denied by the county court, and On appeal to the circuit court it was denied there also, and the judgment of the county court affirmed, in the following language, to-wit: \u201cIt is considered and adjudged by the court that the county judge of Randolph county, in refusing license, exercised a sound judicial discretion, as shown by the order and judgment refusing the same, and the evidence in the cause.\u201d The county court had a discretion in the matter, not only as to the personal character of the petitioner, but as to the suitableness or unsuitableness of the place at which the sale is proposed to be made. There is not only some evidence to sustain the county judge in his findings, but his findings are supported by the evidence, and we affirm the judgment of the circuit court on its conclusions thereon.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Buxx, C. J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "G. G. Dent, for Clark.",
      "P. TI. Crenshaw, Wiii cf; Schoonover, opposing."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ex parte Clark.\nOpinion delivered June 29, 1901.\nLiquors \u2014 Discretion of Court to Refuse License. \u2014 The county court has a discretion in the matter of granting a license to sell liquors, hoth as to the personal character of the applicant and the suitableness of the place at which the sale is proposed to be made, and its decision, if supported by evidence, will not be reversed.\nAppeal from Randolph Circuit Court.\nJoidt B. Ma Caleb, Judge.\nG. G. Dent, for Clark.\nConducting a licensed saloon is not per se a nuisance. 11 Humph. (Tenn.), 411; Black, Intox. Liquors, \u00a7 343. The county judge cannot discriminate between parties as to licenses. 43 Ark. 61; Black, Intox. Liquors, \u00a7\u00a7 170, 171; Sand. & H. Dig., \u00a7\u00a7 4856, 4857, 4863, 4867, 4868, 4-877.\nP. TI. Crenshaw, Wiii cf; Schoonover, opposing.\nAppeals lie only from final decrees, judgments and orders. 26 Ark. 4-52; 26 Ark. 95; 25 Ark. 420; 36 Ark. 200; 30 Ark. 665. The opinion of the judge is not final. 48 Md. 592. The judgment must be rendered and entered before it is final. 32 N\\ W. Rep. 42; 1 Wash. T. 153. A final judgment must give relief by its own force, without further action by the court. 61 Ely. 30."
  },
  "file_name": "0435-01",
  "first_page_order": 453,
  "last_page_order": 454
}