Alamo v. Cole

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Alamo v. Cole

941 S.W.2d 425, 328 Ark. 139

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 14, 1997

Docket97-318

StatusPublished

This text of 941 S.W.2d 425 (Alamo v. Cole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alamo v. Cole, 941 S.W.2d 425, 328 Ark. 139 (Ark. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Tony Alamo, by his attorney, Eric M. Lieberman, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.

Appellant alleges that the Clerk of the Supreme Court rejected appellant’s petition for review because, as a matter of unwritten practice, “the Supreme Court does not review per curiam decisions of the Court of Appeals.” If appellant’s petition for review was indeed rejected for the reason stated by appellant’s counsel, the rejection would have been error. In any event, we have considered appellant’s petition for review and find that it has no merit.

The motion is, therefore, denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Appellant Tony Alamo, by his attorney, Eric M. Lieberman, has filed a motion for rule on the clerk.

Appellant alleges that the Clerk of the Supreme Court rejected appellant’s petition for review because, as a matter of unwritten practice, “the Supreme Court does not review per curiam decisions of the Court of Appeals.” If appellant’s petition for review was indeed rejected for the reason stated by appellant’s counsel, the rejection would have been error. In any event, we have considered appellant’s petition for review and find that it has no merit.

The motion is, therefore, denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

941 S.W.2d 425, 328 Ark. 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alamo-v-cole-ark-1997.