Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Arkansas Pulpwood

9 Citing cases

  1. Holloway v. Arkansas State Board of Architects

    348 Ark. 99 (Ark. 2002)   Cited 8 times
    In Holloway v. Arkansas State Board of Architects, 348 Ark. 99, 71 S.W.3d 563 (2002), also a case where the court reporter sought the extension of time, the supreme court held that an appellee may not challenge the appellant's failure to strictly comply with Rule 5 after a transcript has been lodged within the time granted by the circuit court.

    We recently denied a motion to dismiss an appeal under circumstances similar to the present case. Dugal Logging, Inc. V. Arkansas Pulpwood, 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999). We denied the motion to dismiss because appellant did not file the motion to dismiss before the record was filed with the court.

  2. Mann v. Pierce

    2016 Ark. 418 (Ark. 2016)   Cited 21 times
    In Mann, the notice of appeal stated that appellant was appealing from an order granting partial summary judgment, which had been entered over a year before the notice of appeal was filed.

    See alsoDavis v. Ralston Purina Co ., 248 Ark. 14, 449 S.W.2d 709 (1970) (holding that the filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional but irregularities in the other procedural steps found in Rule 3(e) are merely grounds for such action as this court deems appropriate). In subsequent decisions, we have held that an appellant's failure to strictly comply with the provisions of Rule 3(e) does not render the notice of appeal automatically void. Vimy Ridge , supra ; Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Ark. Pulpwood Co. , 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999) ; Green v. Williford , 331 Ark. 533, 961 S.W.2d 766 (1998). This court has also observed that the procedural steps outlined in Rule 3(e) require only substantial compliance, provided that the appellee has not been prejudiced by the failure to comply strictly with the rule.

  3. Pulaski Choice, L.L.C. v. 2735 Villa Creek, L.P.

    2010 Ark. 91 (Ark. 2010)   Cited 5 times

    Under this court's general superintending control over all courts of the state, we have historically answered and reassigned to the court of appeals cases certified to us by that court where we could answer a preliminary or procedural question that did not materially affect the issues on appeal. SeeDugal Logging, Inc. v. Ark. Pulpwood Co., Inc., 336 Ark. 55, 59, 984 S.W.2d 410, 412 (1999) (" For the reasons above, we deny Riverwood's motion to dismiss, and reassign this case to the court of appeals to decide the remaining issues." ).

  4. Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District No. 139 v. Ryles

    284 S.W.3d 70 (Ark. 2008)   Cited 3 times

    Instead, the notice of appeal mentions the summary judgment order entered May 19, 2006. However, the trial court's August 15, 2007 order simply reiterated the previous disposition of the motions for summary judgment, and dismissed with prejudice the defendants unaddressed by the previous order. Under these circumstances, Vimy Ridge's failure to designate the August 15 order in its notice of appeal is not fatal to this appeal. See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., Inc. v. Sudrick, 49 Ark. App. 84, 896 S.W.2d 452 (1995); see also Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Ark. Pulpwood Co., Inc., 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999) (explaining that an appellant's noncompliance with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(e) does not render the notice automatically void). Turning to the merits of this case, we do so by reviewing the trial court's decision in this tax case de novo, but will not disturb the trial court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous.

  5. Pro-Comp Mgmt., Inc. v. R.K. Enters

    372 Ark. 190 (Ark. 2008)   Cited 24 times
    In R.K. Enterprises, LLC, the appellants' amended notice of appeal said that they were appealing from a judgment "entered... on April 12, 2007."

    See Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Ark., Inc. v. Sudrick, 49 Ark.App. 84,896 S.W.2d 452 (1995). See also Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Ark. Pulpwood Co., Inc., 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999) (explaining that an appellant's noncompliance with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(e) does not render the notice automatically void).Prejudgment Interest

  6. Seay v. Wildlife Farms, Inc.

    29 S.W.3d 711 (Ark. 2000)   Cited 17 times
    Affirming the ALJ because the appellant had abandoned the argument on appeal by failing to discuss it

    [8] We note at this point that the Seays contend we should find that WF's motion to dismiss this appeal is untimely. Citing Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Arkansas Pulpwood Co., 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999), they assert that WF should have raised the issue of the timeliness of the lodging of the record before the record was filed. WF responds that, because the Seays filed a notice of appeal designating the entire record, it had no reason to believe that the entire record would not be lodged.

  7. Maxey v. Tyson Foods, Inc.

    18 S.W.3d 328 (Ark. 2000)   Cited 11 times
    In Maxey, the petition for review alleged that the case presented an issue of first impression, one of the six Rule 1-2(b) grounds that permits the filing of a petition for review under Rule 2-4(c).

    Moreover, the factors we consider in determining whether to grant a petition to review neither control nor fully measure our discretion. See id.; see also Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Arkansas Pulpwood Co., 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999). Accordingly, although Ms. Maxey initially requested reversal only in regard to the issue of the liability of the Second Injury Fund, we will consider the case on petition for review in its entirety.

  8. Glass v. State

    16 S.W.3d 543 (Ark. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    It should be noted that motions involving an issue of significant public interest may be certified to us by the Court of Appeals pursuant to Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 1-2(d). Webber v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 334 Ark. 527, 975 S.W.2d 829 (1998); See also, Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Arkansas Pulpwood Co., 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999); Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Arkansas Pulpwood Co., 335 Ark. 546, 983 S.W.2d 126 (1998).

  9. Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Ar. Pulpwood Co.

    66 Ark. App. 22 (Ark. Ct. App. 1999)   Cited 21 times
    Finding prejudgment interest appropriate in conversion case

    On January 14, 1999, the supreme court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal and reassigned the remainder of the case to this court. See Dugal Logging, Inc. v. Arkansas Pulpwood Co., Inc., 336 Ark. 55, 984 S.W.2d 410 (1999). The issue has thus been decided, and we need not address it further.