Home/Court of Appeals of Arkansas/McCullough v. Lessenberry

McCullough v. Lessenberry

769 S.W.2d 420, 27 Ark. App. 127, 1989 Ark. App. LEXIS 144
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedMarch 29, 1989
DocketCA 89-51
StatusPublished

This text of 769 S.W.2d 420 (McCullough v. Lessenberry) 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
McCullough v. Lessenberry, 769 S.W.2d 420, 27 Ark. App. 127, 1989 Ark. App. LEXIS 144 (Ark. Ct. App. 1989).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This case is an appeal from an order finding the appellant, an Arkansas attorney, in contempt of court while serving as an attorney in an otherwise unrelated case. The appellant filed this motion to transfer the case to the Arkansas Supreme Court, asserting that jurisdiction is properly in the Supreme Court under Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 29(l)(h) because the case involves the discipline of an attorney-at-law. We agree. The Arkansas Supreme Court stated, in Rosenzweig v. Lofton, 295 Ark. 573, 751 S.W.2d 573 (1988), that contempt cases involving attorneys are matters within their jurisdiction under Rule 29(1)(h).

Motion granted.

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

Related

Allen v. Allen
751 S.W.2d 567 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
Rosenzweig v. Lofton
751 S.W.2d 729 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
769 S.W.2d 420, 27 Ark. App. 127, 1989 Ark. App. LEXIS 144, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mccullough-v-lessenberry-arkctapp-1989.