Ekelman v. Lockhart

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Ekelman v. Lockhart

823 S.W.2d 910, 308 Ark. 371, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 68

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 17, 1992

Docket91-343

StatusPublished

This text of 823 S.W.2d 910 (Ekelman 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

Ekelman v. Lockhart, 823 S.W.2d 910, 308 Ark. 371, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 68 (Ark. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

William F. Ekelman asks permission to file a handwritten brief. We have held that a handwritten brief will be allowed on two conditions — one, that the movant has no access to a typewriter and, two, makes a showing that there is substantial merit to the action. Patterson v. State, 289 Ark. 564, 712 S.W.2d 922 (1986). Since the adoption of that rule some years ago we have had scores of motions for handwritten briefs. Almost without exception they have been denied, not due to handwriting, but because they uniformly fail to make any attempt to show there is substantial merit to their cause. In fact, typically, they fail to even tell us what the case is about or what relief is being sought. This motion by William F. Ekelman is no exception. Motions for handwritten briefs must set forth the nature of the action, errors charged to the trial court, and other information essential to a showing of substantial merit.

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

Per Curiam.

William F. Ekelman asks permission to file a handwritten brief. We have held that a handwritten brief will be allowed on two conditions — one, that the movant has no access to a typewriter and, two, makes a showing that there is substantial merit to the action. Patterson v. State, 289 Ark. 564, 712 S.W.2d 922 (1986). Since the adoption of that rule some years ago we have had scores of motions for handwritten briefs. Almost without exception they have been denied, not due to handwriting, but because they uniformly fail to make any attempt to show there is substantial merit to their cause. In fact, typically, they fail to even tell us what the case is about or what relief is being sought. This motion by William F. Ekelman is no exception. Motions for handwritten briefs must set forth the nature of the action, errors charged to the trial court, and other information essential to a showing of substantial merit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

823 S.W.2d 910, 308 Ark. 371, 1992 Ark. LEXIS 68, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ekelman-v-lockhart-ark-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack