Kissinger v. Turner

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Kissinger v. Turner

894 S.W.2d 614, 49 Ark. App. 1, 1995 Ark. App. LEXIS 126

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 15, 1995

DocketCA 94-384

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 894 S.W.2d 614 (Kissinger v. Turner) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Kissinger v. Turner, 894 S.W.2d 614, 49 Ark. App. 1, 1995 Ark. App. LEXIS 126 (Ark. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinions

John E. Jennings, Chief Judge.

This case is a boundary line dispute. Because the record on appeal was not timely lodged, we have determined that we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal and therefore it must be dismissed.

The judgment in the case at bar was entered by the Craighead County Chancery Court on August 30, 1993. Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on September 13, 1993. Appellants then obtained an order of the chancery court extending the time to file the record on appeal to April 11, 1994.¹ In this the trial court exceeded its authority because Rule 5(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “in no event shall the time be extended more than seven months from the date of entry of the decree. . . .”

The case at bar is indistinguishable from Morris v. Stroud, 317 Ark. 628, 831 S.W.2d 1 (1994). There, the supreme court held, in virtually identical circumstances, that the appeal must be dismissed for failure to timely lodge the record. We can find no basis to distinguish that case from this one and must therefore dismiss the appeal.

Dismissed.

Cooper and Mayfield, JJ., dissent.

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

John E. Jennings, Chief Judge.

This case is a boundary line dispute. Because the record on appeal was not timely lodged, we have determined that we lack jurisdiction to hear the appeal and therefore it must be dismissed.

The judgment in the case at bar was entered by the Craighead County Chancery Court on August 30, 1993. Appellants filed a timely notice of appeal on September 13, 1993. Appellants then obtained an order of the chancery court extending the time to file the record on appeal to April 11, 1994.¹ In this the trial court exceeded its authority because Rule 5(b) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that “in no event shall the time be extended more than seven months from the date of entry of the decree. . . .”

The case at bar is indistinguishable from Morris v. Stroud, 317 Ark. 628, 831 S.W.2d 1 (1994). There, the supreme court held, in virtually identical circumstances, that the appeal must be dismissed for failure to timely lodge the record. We can find no basis to distinguish that case from this one and must therefore dismiss the appeal.

Dismissed.

Cooper and Mayfield, JJ., dissent.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

894 S.W.2d 614, 49 Ark. App. 1, 1995 Ark. App. LEXIS 126, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kissinger-v-turner-arkctapp-1995.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack