Hainline v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hainline v. State

25 S.W.3d 413, 342 Ark. 5, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 379, 2000 WL 1281215

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedSeptember 7, 2000

DocketCR 00-798

StatusPublished

This text of 25 S.W.3d 413 (Hainline v. State) 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

Hainline v. State, 25 S.W.3d 413, 342 Ark. 5, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 379, 2000 WL 1281215 (Ark. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Daniel Milburn Hainline, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk. His attorney, Boyce R. Davis, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by an attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See In Re Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

The motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

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

Per Curiam.

Appellant, Daniel Milburn Hainline, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk. His attorney, Boyce R. Davis, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by an attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See In Re Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam).

The motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 S.W.3d 413, 342 Ark. 5, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 379, 2000 WL 1281215, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hainline-v-state-ark-2000.