From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wade v. Franklin-Stricklin Land Surveyors

Supreme Court of Arkansas (Division II)
Feb 12, 1979
264 Ark. 841 (Ark. 1979)

Opinion

No. 78-173

Opinion delivered January 15, 1979 [Rehearing denied February 12, 1979.]

APPEAL ERROR — FAILURE OF APPELLANT TO ABSTRACT RECORD IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUPREME COURT RULE 9 — AFFIRMANCE UPON APPEAL. — Where an appellant totally fails to comply with Rule 9(d), Hues of the Arkansas Supreme Court, which requires that an appellant abstract the record by condensing the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents in the record, the appeal will be affirmed under Rule 9(e)(2), Rules of the Supreme Court.

Appeal from Lawrence Circuit Court, Gerald Brown, Judge; affirmed.

Appellant, pro se.

Jim Stallcup, for appellees.


This appeal is affirmed under Rule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas because appellant failed to abstract any of the record in violation of Rule 9(d).

Rule 9 requires the abstract of the record to be a condensation of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents in the record. The appellant totally failed to comply with the rule. In numerous recent cases we have found it necessary to affirm for noncompliance with Rule 9(d): Dyke Industries v. Johnson Const. Co., et al, 261 Ark. 790, 551 S.W.2d 217 (1977); Manes v. M.O.V.E., Inc., et al, 261 Ark. 793, 552 S.W.2d 211 (1977); Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Carter, 261 Ark. 795, 551 S.W.2d 211 (1977); Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs, 263 Ark. 113, 563 S.W.2d 707 (1978); Weston v. Ponder, 263 Ark. 370, 565 S.W.2d 31 (1978); Merritt v. Merritt, 263 Ark. 432, 565 S.W.2d 603 (1978); Smith v. Smith, 263 Ark. 578, 567 S.W.2d 88 (1978).

Affirmed.

We agree. HARRIS, C.J., and FOGLEMAN and HOLT, JJ.


Summaries of

Wade v. Franklin-Stricklin Land Surveyors

Supreme Court of Arkansas (Division II)
Feb 12, 1979
264 Ark. 841 (Ark. 1979)
Case details for

Wade v. Franklin-Stricklin Land Surveyors

Case Details

Full title:William H. WADE v. FRANKLIN-STRICKLIN LAND SURVEYORS, INC

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas (Division II)

Date published: Feb 12, 1979

Citations

264 Ark. 841 (Ark. 1979)
575 S.W.2d 672

Citing Cases

Smith v. Bullard

In numerous cases this court found it necessary to affirm for noncompliance with Rule 9. Dyke Industries,…

Farrco Const. Co. v. Goleman

We explained in Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs, 263 Ark. 113, 563 S.W.2d 707 (1978), the necessity for the…