May v. May

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May v. May

589 S.W.2d 8, 267 Ark. 27, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1568

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedOctober 29, 1979

Docket79-242

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 589 S.W.2d 8 (May v. May) 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

May v. May, 589 S.W.2d 8, 267 Ark. 27, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1568 (Ark. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Frank Holt, Justice.

In May v. May, an unpublished per curiam order dated October 24, 1977, we affirmed appellant’s divorce decree because of his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 9(d), Ark. Stat. Ann. Yol. 3A (Repl. 1979). Thereupon, appellant filed a motion asking the chancellor to set aside the decree asserting that the property settlement contained therein was not reached by agreement of the parties but was ordered by the court in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1215 (Supp. 1979). The chancellor correctly concluded that all issues presented in the motion to set aside the decree were res judicata due to our prior affirmance of the decree. It is well established that a judgment on first appeal is conclusive as to every question of law or fact that was actually decided, or could have been decided, at that time. Gibson v. Gibson, 266 Ark. 622, 589 S.W. 2d 1 (1979); and Hollingsworth v. McAndrew, 79 Ark. 185, 95 S.W. 485 (1906).

Further, as noted by the appellee, appellant failed to abstract the allegedly defective divorce decree. Again, the appellant has failed to comply with Rule 9(d).

Affirmed.

Harris, C J., and Byrd and Purtle, JJ., not participating.

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

Frank Holt, Justice.

In May v. May, an unpublished per curiam order dated October 24, 1977, we affirmed appellant’s divorce decree because of his failure to comply with Supreme Court Rule 9(d), Ark. Stat. Ann. Yol. 3A (Repl. 1979). Thereupon, appellant filed a motion asking the chancellor to set aside the decree asserting that the property settlement contained therein was not reached by agreement of the parties but was ordered by the court in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1215 (Supp. 1979). The chancellor correctly concluded that all issues presented in the motion to set aside the decree were res judicata due to our prior affirmance of the decree. It is well established that a judgment on first appeal is conclusive as to every question of law or fact that was actually decided, or could have been decided, at that time. Gibson v. Gibson, 266 Ark. 622, 589 S.W. 2d 1 (1979); and Hollingsworth v. McAndrew, 79 Ark. 185, 95 S.W. 485 (1906).

Further, as noted by the appellee, appellant failed to abstract the allegedly defective divorce decree. Again, the appellant has failed to comply with Rule 9(d).

Affirmed.

Harris, C J., and Byrd and Purtle, JJ., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

589 S.W.2d 8, 267 Ark. 27, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1568, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/may-v-may-ark-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack