Hogrobrooks v. Board of Law Examiners

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hogrobrooks v. Board of Law Examiners

159 S.W.3d 285, 357 Ark. 36, 2004 Ark. LEXIS 224

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 15, 2004

Docket03-1414

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 159 S.W.3d 285 (Hogrobrooks v. Board of Law Examiners) 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

Hogrobrooks v. Board of Law Examiners, 159 S.W.3d 285, 357 Ark. 36, 2004 Ark. LEXIS 224 (Ark. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curito a

Appellant Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks seeks to appeal a decision by the Appellee State Board of Law Examiners not to reinstate her to the Bar of Arkansas. On February 24, 2004, Ms. Hogrobrooks attempted to file her brief in the matter. This brief was tendered and not accepted for filing by the Supreme Court Clerk due to incorrect page numbering. On March 2, 2004, Ms. Hogrobrooks filed a motion for rule on clerk to accept her non-conforming brief in which she asserted that she relied on Rule 4-2 of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court for paginating her brief. She adds in her motion that she initially understood Rule 4-2 to require that the table of contents would consist of page “number one” but that her word processor would not allow the numbering, as this court wanted it. Additionally, Ms. Hogrobrooks claims that there is no confusion as to where information is located in her brief and that the Clerk should accept the brief for that reason. The Board did not file a response.

We deny Ms. Hogrobrooks’ motion for rule on clerk and order that she file a conforming brief within ten days from the date of this per curiam opinion. We require in a brief filed with this court and the Court of Appeals that the following sections be listed consecutively with lowercase Roman numerals: Table of Contents, Informational Statement, Points on Appeal, and Table of Authorities. Following these sections, the Abstract should begin with “Ab 1” and continue sequentially through the end of the Abstract section. Following the Abstract, the Argument section should begin with “Arg 1” and continue sequentially through the end of the Argument section. And following the Argument, the Addendum section should begin with “Add 1” and continue sequentially through the end of the Addendum section.

Should a conforming brief not be filed by Ms. Hogrobrooks within ten days of the date of this per curiam order, her appeal will be dismissed.

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

Per Curito a

Appellant Heather Patrice Hogrobrooks seeks to appeal a decision by the Appellee State Board of Law Examiners not to reinstate her to the Bar of Arkansas. On February 24, 2004, Ms. Hogrobrooks attempted to file her brief in the matter. This brief was tendered and not accepted for filing by the Supreme Court Clerk due to incorrect page numbering. On March 2, 2004, Ms. Hogrobrooks filed a motion for rule on clerk to accept her non-conforming brief in which she asserted that she relied on Rule 4-2 of the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court for paginating her brief. She adds in her motion that she initially understood Rule 4-2 to require that the table of contents would consist of page “number one” but that her word processor would not allow the numbering, as this court wanted it. Additionally, Ms. Hogrobrooks claims that there is no confusion as to where information is located in her brief and that the Clerk should accept the brief for that reason. The Board did not file a response.

We deny Ms. Hogrobrooks’ motion for rule on clerk and order that she file a conforming brief within ten days from the date of this per curiam opinion. We require in a brief filed with this court and the Court of Appeals that the following sections be listed consecutively with lowercase Roman numerals: Table of Contents, Informational Statement, Points on Appeal, and Table of Authorities. Following these sections, the Abstract should begin with “Ab 1” and continue sequentially through the end of the Abstract section. Following the Abstract, the Argument section should begin with “Arg 1” and continue sequentially through the end of the Argument section. And following the Argument, the Addendum section should begin with “Add 1” and continue sequentially through the end of the Addendum section.

Should a conforming brief not be filed by Ms. Hogrobrooks within ten days of the date of this per curiam order, her appeal will be dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 S.W.3d 285, 357 Ark. 36, 2004 Ark. LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogrobrooks-v-board-of-law-examiners-ark-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack