Coble v. Lockhart

739 S.W.2d 164, 293 Ark. 515, 1987 Ark. LEXIS 2391
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 9, 1987
Docket87-182 & 87-218
StatusPublished

This text of 739 S.W.2d 164 (Coble v. Lockhart) 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
Coble v. Lockhart, 739 S.W.2d 164, 293 Ark. 515, 1987 Ark. LEXIS 2391 (Ark. 1987).

Opinions

Per Curiam.

Raymond Coble and David Hugh Williams have filed handwritten motions asking only to proceed in forma pauperis, for what purpose is not stated. We have held that handwritten briefs will be accepted where the petitioner shows that he has no access to a typewriter and makes a substantial showing that his suit has merit. See Glick v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 417, 706 S.W.2d 178 (1986) and Hayes v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 419, 706 S.W.2d 179 (1986). While movants have made no attempt to show that there is merit to their unstated claims, we do not deny the motions on that basis, but because the motions fail to comply with Rule 28 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals.

Purtle, J., dissents.

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

Related

Glick v. Lockhart
706 S.W.2d 178 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1986)
Hayes v. Lockhart
706 S.W.2d 179 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1986)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
739 S.W.2d 164, 293 Ark. 515, 1987 Ark. LEXIS 2391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/coble-v-lockhart-ark-1987.