Harris v. Arkansas Real Estate Commission

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Harris v. Arkansas Real Estate Commission

627 S.W.2d 1, 274 Ark. 537, 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1225

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 11, 1982

Docket81-161

StatusPublished

Cited by11 cases

This text of 627 S.W.2d 1 (Harris v. Arkansas Real Estate Commission) 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

Harris v. Arkansas Real Estate Commission, 627 S.W.2d 1, 274 Ark. 537, 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1225 (Ark. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a circuit court judgment affirming the decision of the Arkansas Real Estate Commission to revoke appellant’s real estate broker’s license. In the process of appeal, the appellant has filed two volumes entitled “Abstract and Brief of Appellant.” However, the appellant has not abstracted the transcripts of testimony of the hearings. Instead, he has reproduced a major part of the transcripts. A reprint of a transcript is not an abstract. Rule 9 of the Arkansas Supreme Court sets forth in detail the manner in which the appellant is to make an abstract of the record. For a discussion of abstracting see Smith, Arkansas Appellate Practice: Abstracting the Record, 31 Ark. L. Rev. 359 (1977). Rule 9 (d) does not permit the reproduction or substitution of the record in place of an abstract. We have consistently held that this flagrant violation of Rule 9 (d) calls for summary affirmance. Sellers v. Harvey, 222 Ark. 804, 263 S.W. 2d 86 (1953); Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 239 Ark. 141, 387 S.W. 2d 605 (1965); Smith v. Pond, 259 Ark. 564, 534 S.W. 2d 769 (1976).

Affirmed pursuant to Rule 9 (e) (2).

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

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a circuit court judgment affirming the decision of the Arkansas Real Estate Commission to revoke appellant’s real estate broker’s license. In the process of appeal, the appellant has filed two volumes entitled “Abstract and Brief of Appellant.” However, the appellant has not abstracted the transcripts of testimony of the hearings. Instead, he has reproduced a major part of the transcripts. A reprint of a transcript is not an abstract. Rule 9 of the Arkansas Supreme Court sets forth in detail the manner in which the appellant is to make an abstract of the record. For a discussion of abstracting see Smith, Arkansas Appellate Practice: Abstracting the Record, 31 Ark. L. Rev. 359 (1977). Rule 9 (d) does not permit the reproduction or substitution of the record in place of an abstract. We have consistently held that this flagrant violation of Rule 9 (d) calls for summary affirmance. Sellers v. Harvey, 222 Ark. 804, 263 S.W. 2d 86 (1953); Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 239 Ark. 141, 387 S.W. 2d 605 (1965); Smith v. Pond, 259 Ark. 564, 534 S.W. 2d 769 (1976).

Affirmed pursuant to Rule 9 (e) (2).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

627 S.W.2d 1, 274 Ark. 537, 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harris-v-arkansas-real-estate-commission-ark-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack