From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sturch v. Sturch

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Feb 21, 1994
870 S.W.2d 720 (Ark. 1994)

Opinion

93-574

Opinion delivered February 21, 1994

APPEAL ERROR — ABSTRACT FLAGRANTLY DEFICIENT. — Arkansas Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) requires an abstract to consist of material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters necessary to an understanding of the question presented to the court; where appellant's abstract consisted solely of a one-half page portion of the chancellor's divorce decree, the abstract was flagrantly deficient; it was impossible to locate any factors that led to the chancellor's ruling, and it was impossible to address adequately the point on appeal.

Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Annabelle Clinton Imber, Chancellor; affirmed.

Gregory E. Bryant, for appellant.

Dana Sue West, for appellee.


Christi Sturch appeals a divorce decree from Pulaski County Chancery Court. We affirm the Chancellor's decision pursuant to Ark. Rule Sup. Ct. 4-2(b)(2) due to the appellant's flagrantly deficient abstract.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) requires an abstract to consist of material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters necessary to an understanding of the question presented to the court. In this appeal the appellant's abstract consists solely of a one-half page portion of the Chancellor's divorce decree. From this abstract it is impossible to locate any factors that led to the Chancellor's ruling which resulted in this appeal. For this reason it is impossible to address adequately the point on appeal, and we will not attempt to do so.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Sturch v. Sturch

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Feb 21, 1994
870 S.W.2d 720 (Ark. 1994)
Case details for

Sturch v. Sturch

Case Details

Full title:Christi Lynn STURCH v. James Paul STURCH

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: Feb 21, 1994

Citations

870 S.W.2d 720 (Ark. 1994)
870 S.W.2d 720

Citing Cases

Lee v. Villines

Thus, we are left with only the bare conclusion to dismiss, and, therefore, cannot review the trial court's…

D. Hawkins, Inc. v. Schumacher

Carmical, 316 Ark. 208, 871 S.W.2d 386. On this record, we cannot discern whether appellant preserved its…