Bridger v. Mooney

644 S.W.2d 929, 278 Ark. 225, 1983 Ark. LEXIS 1238
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedJanuary 24, 1983
Docket82-152
StatusPublished

This text of 644 S.W.2d 929 (Bridger v. Mooney) 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
Bridger v. Mooney, 644 S.W.2d 929, 278 Ark. 225, 1983 Ark. LEXIS 1238 (Ark. 1983).

Opinion

Frank Holt, Justice.

The appellant has failed to comply with Rule 9 (d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, so we affirm the trial court. The abstract contains neither the pleadings, the requests for admissions, the exhibits, nor the decree of the court. The defects in the abstract are almost identical to those that caused the appeal to be affirmed in Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs, 263 Ark. 113, 563 S.W.2d 707 (1978). Here, as there, it is impossible, for us to read the abstracted pages of the testimony with any comprehension of the issues that were before the trial court or how the trial court ruled on those issues.

We recognize that the appellant, who is not a lawyer, represented himself in this appeal. However, our rules do not provide for relaxed standards for pro se briefs. Furthermore, the appellant has represented himself before this court on two prior occasions, once successfully, so he should not be a stranger to the rules governing appeals to this court.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs
563 S.W.2d 707 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1978)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
644 S.W.2d 929, 278 Ark. 225, 1983 Ark. LEXIS 1238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bridger-v-mooney-ark-1983.