Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.

387 S.W.2d 605, 239 Ark. 141, 1965 Ark. LEXIS 942

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 8, 1965

Docket5-3454

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 387 S.W.2d 605 (Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.) 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

Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 387 S.W.2d 605, 239 Ark. 141, 1965 Ark. LEXIS 942 (Ark. 1965).

Pincite

Opinion

Frank Holt, Associate Justice.

The appellant brought this action to enjoin the appellee from using his property in its watershed construction project. The chancellor sustained appellee’s plea of res judicata, holding that the same issue between the same parties was previously before this court in Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 234 Ark. 181, 351 S. W. 2d 142. On appeal we do not reach the merits of the case since there is a failure by appellant to comply with the requirements of Rule 9 (d) of this court.

The abstract cannot be said to be a condensation or abridgment of the record as required since it contains a copy in full or is a mere reproduction of the entire transcript. Sellers v. Harvey, 222 Ark. 804, 263 S. W. 2d 86. A considerable part of the matter reproduced is not material to the issue raised nor necessary to an understanding thereof. The object sought by Rule 9(d) is to confine the abstract to only that part of the record as is necessary to give this court a clear understanding of the issue or issues presented.

Affirmed.

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

Frank Holt, Associate Justice.

The appellant brought this action to enjoin the appellee from using his property in its watershed construction project. The chancellor sustained appellee’s plea of res judicata, holding that the same issue between the same parties was previously before this court in Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 234 Ark. 181, 351 S. W. 2d 142. On appeal we do not reach the merits of the case since there is a failure by appellant to comply with the requirements of Rule 9 (d) of this court.

The abstract cannot be said to be a condensation or abridgment of the record as required since it contains a copy in full or is a mere reproduction of the entire transcript. Sellers v. Harvey, 222 Ark. 804, 263 S. W. 2d 86. A considerable part of the matter reproduced is not material to the issue raised nor necessary to an understanding thereof. The object sought by Rule 9(d) is to confine the abstract to only that part of the record as is necessary to give this court a clear understanding of the issue or issues presented.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

387 S.W.2d 605, 239 Ark. 141, 1965 Ark. LEXIS 942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-ouachita-creek-watershed-dist-ark-1965.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack