{
  "id": 1491193,
  "name": "Ex parte Merritt",
  "name_abbreviation": "Ex parte Merritt",
  "decision_date": "1906-10-01",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "203",
  "last_page": "204",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "80 Ark. 203"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 Ark. 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1502462
      ],
      "opinion_index": -1,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/75/0542-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "75 Ark. 542",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1502462
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/75/0542-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 109,
    "char_count": 1423,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.688,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.05583433628755962
    },
    "sha256": "68cf37471f537ed936437af14f745ada4852f6f2959080ddd6cf4b7543a1dd14",
    "simhash": "1:8ac7e528056ccf67",
    "word_count": 244
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:02:24.457794+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Ex parte Merritt."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Wood, J.\nThe Attorney General by certiorari seeks to quash the judgment of the chancery court of Union County. The petition sets up that one J. H. Merritt was duly fined by a justice of the peace in Monroe County, Arkansas, in the sum of $50 for violating the provisions of section 6876 of Kirby\u2019s Digest. That afterwards Merritt was discharged on a writ of habeas corpus, by the chancery court of Union \u2019 County, on the ground that the act of 1901 (sec. 6886, Kirby\u2019s .Digest) repealed section 6876 of the Digest. The Attorney General set out a copy of the proceedings before the justice and the chancellor, and asks that the findings of the chancellor be reviewed, etc.\nThe only question is, was section 6876 of the Digest repealed by the act of - April 29, 1901 (section 6886, Kirby\u2019s Digest) ?\nWe held in Ex parte Deeds, 75 Ark. 542, that the act of April 29, 1901, was unconstitutional.\nThe judgment of the Union Chancery Court is therefore reversed and quashed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Wood, J."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert B. Rogers, Attorney General, for petitioner.",
      "'Respondent pro se."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Ex parte Merritt.\nOpinion delivered October 1, 1906.\nTaxation \u2014 peddlers.\u2014'The act of March 13, 1883, relating to taxing of peddlers (Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 6876), was not repealed by the later act of April 29, 1901 (Kirby\u2019s Digest, \u00a7 6886), which was held in Ex parte Deeds, 75 Ark. 542, to be unconstitutional.\nCertiorari to Union Chancery Court; Bmon 0. Mahoney, Chancellor;\nreversed.\nRobert B. Rogers, Attorney General, for petitioner.\n'Respondent pro se."
  },
  "file_name": "0203-01",
  "first_page_order": 225,
  "last_page_order": 226
}