Martin v. City of Searcy

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Martin v. City of Searcy

909 S.W.2d 652, 322 Ark. 562, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 674

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 20, 1995

DocketCR 95-1143

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 909 S.W.2d 652 (Martin v. City of Searcy) 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

Martin v. City of Searcy, 909 S.W.2d 652, 322 Ark. 562, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 674 (Ark. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Appellant Johnny Martin, by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Robert Meurer, admits that the failure to file the record in time was due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5, 1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964. 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 Johnny Martin, by his attorney, has filed for a rule on the clerk.

His attorney, Robert Meurer, admits that the failure to file the record in time was due to a mistake on his part.

We find that such an error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See our Per Curiam opinion dated February 5, 1979, In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

909 S.W.2d 652, 322 Ark. 562, 1995 Ark. LEXIS 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/martin-v-city-of-searcy-ark-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack