Debartolo Corp. v. Cartwright

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Debartolo Corp. v. Cartwright

910 S.W.2d 675, 322 Ark. 561, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 749

Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided November 20, 1995·No. 94-1147·Published

Opinion

Per Curiam.

In response to appellee’s motion for disqualification, Justices Robert H. Dudley, Tom Glaze, and Donald Corbin recuse but not for any of the reasons set out in her motion. Appellee’s attorney, J. L. Wilson, was sanctioned in federal court as a result of a criminal conviction and is now the subject of disciplinary proceedings before the State Professional Conduct Committee and disbarment proceedings before the Phillips County Circuit Court which have been remanded to federal court. Because these named justices intend to seek Rule 11 sanctions to be imposed against attorney J. L. Wilson and his attorneys for filing a no-merit petition in federal court, we recuse.

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

Per Curiam.

In response to appellee’s motion for disqualification, Justices Robert H. Dudley, Tom Glaze, and Donald Corbin recuse but not for any of the reasons set out in her motion. Appellee’s attorney, J. L. Wilson, was sanctioned in federal court as a result of a criminal conviction and is now the subject of disciplinary proceedings before the State Professional Conduct Committee and disbarment proceedings before the Phillips County Circuit Court which have been remanded to federal court. Because these named justices intend to seek Rule 11 sanctions to be imposed against attorney J. L. Wilson and his attorneys for filing a no-merit petition in federal court, we recuse.

Debartolo Corp. v. Cartwright, 910 S.W.2d 675, 322 Ark. 561, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 749 (Ark. 1995).

Pincite

910 S.W.2d 675 (Debartolo Corp. v. Cartwright) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.