Opinion
96-1037
Opinion delivered October 14, 1996
ELECTIONS — SUPREME COURT CONCERNED ONLY WITH LEGAL ISSUES PERTAINING TO POPULAR NAME AND BALLOT TITLE — UNNECESSARY TO APPOINT SPECIAL MASTER OR TO ORDER DISCOVERY. — Where petitioners clearly stated in their earlier motion to expedite that they did not intend to offer proof on the factual allegations contained in their original petition challenging the sufficiency of Proposed Amendment 9, the supreme court would be concerned only with the legal issues pertaining to the popular name and ballot title, and it was unnecessary to appoint a special master or to order discovery in the case; the court denied petitioners' motions for judgment as a matter of law and to appoint a special master.
Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law denied; Motion to Appoint Special Master denied.
Oscar Stilley, for petitioners.
Kelly Law Firm, PLC, by: A.J. Kelly, for respondent Frank Gilbert.
In this original action, Respondent Frank Gilbert has filed a response to Petitioners' motion to expedite and has moved the Court for judgment as a matter of law as to the factual allegations contained in the original petition. Mr. Gilbert moves in the alternative for appointment of a special master pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. Rule 6-5(b), and he asks the Court to compel the Petitioners to respond to his requests for discovery.
[1] Petitioners filed a motion to expedite on October 1, 1996. We granted the motion on October 7, 1996, relying on Petitioners' statement that their challenge to the sufficiency of Proposed Amendment 9 would concern only legal issues. Petitioners clearly stated in their motion that they did not intend to offer proof on the factual allegations contained in their original petition; thus, we will be concerned only with the legal issues pertaining to the popular name and ballot title. It is unnecessary to appoint a special master or to order discovery in this case, and we deny the motions.