Fair v. Duncan

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Fair v. Duncan

612 S.W.2d 123, 272 Ark. 114, 1981 Ark. LEXIS 1217

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 2, 1981

Docket80-258

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 612 S.W.2d 123 (Fair v. Duncan) 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

Fair v. Duncan, 612 S.W.2d 123, 272 Ark. 114, 1981 Ark. LEXIS 1217 (Ark. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant brought suit below for personal injuries to his minor son and property damage to a motorcycle belonging to appellant, as the result of a motor vehicle collision between appellant’s son and the appellee on August 28, 1975. A unanimous jury verdict in favor of defendant-appellee was returned and appellant appeals on seven assignments of error.

Appellant’s brief contains nothing in the way of an abstract other than pleadings and he has cited no authority in support of the alleged errors. It would be impossible to give intelligent consideration to any of appellant’s points of error on the basis of appellant’s brief. We therefore affirm due to failure to comply with Rule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Umholtz v. Allen, 254 Ark. 722, 495 S.W. 2d 874 (1973); Dickson v. Harpole, 238 Ark. 775, 384 S.W. 2d 472 (1964).

Affirmed.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant brought suit below for personal injuries to his minor son and property damage to a motorcycle belonging to appellant, as the result of a motor vehicle collision between appellant’s son and the appellee on August 28, 1975. A unanimous jury verdict in favor of defendant-appellee was returned and appellant appeals on seven assignments of error.

Appellant’s brief contains nothing in the way of an abstract other than pleadings and he has cited no authority in support of the alleged errors. It would be impossible to give intelligent consideration to any of appellant’s points of error on the basis of appellant’s brief. We therefore affirm due to failure to comply with Rule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court. Umholtz v. Allen, 254 Ark. 722, 495 S.W. 2d 874 (1973); Dickson v. Harpole, 238 Ark. 775, 384 S.W. 2d 472 (1964).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

612 S.W.2d 123, 272 Ark. 114, 1981 Ark. LEXIS 1217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fair-v-duncan-ark-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack