Kimble v. Gray

853 S.W.2d 890, 313 Ark. 373, 1993 Ark. LEXIS 336
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided June 1, 1991·No. 92-1486·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

Per Curiam.

We granted Rhonda Kimble’s petition for review of the court of appeals’ per curiam granting dismissal of her appeal. Appellee, now respondent, Robert Gray, Sr., previously asked the court of appeals to determine that Kimble had failed to file a timely appeal. The court of appeals found Kimble had filed her notice of appeal one day too early, and under the terms of Rule 4(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court held Kimble’s notice of appeal had no effect. The court of appeals’ per curiam, Kimble v. Gray, Sr., 40 Ark. App. 196, 842 S.W.2d 473 (1992), succinctly sets out that court’s authority and reasons for dismissing Kimble’s appeal. Because we agree with the court of appeals’ per curiam and ruling, we merely affirm its decision.

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

Kimble v. Gray, 853 S.W.2d 890, 313 Ark. 373, 1993 Ark. LEXIS 336 (Ark. 1991).

853 S.W.2d 890 (Kimble v. Gray) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Glass v. State
16 S.W.3d 543 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2000)
Chickasaw Chemical Co. v. Beasley
944 S.W.2d 511 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1997)
Glover v. Langford
894 S.W.2d 959 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1995)
Lawrence Bros., Inc. v. RJ" Bob" Jones Excavating Contractor, Inc.
884 S.W.2d 620 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1994)
Mangiapane v. State
858 S.W.2d 128 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1993)