Reynolds v. Rogers

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Reynolds v. Rogers

763 S.W.2d 660, 297 Ark. 506, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 35

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 30, 1989

Docket88-193

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 763 S.W.2d 660 (Reynolds v. Rogers) 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

Reynolds v. Rogers, 763 S.W.2d 660, 297 Ark. 506, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 35 (Ark. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.

This case is before us on a petition for writ of prohibition. The petitioner, Eugene Reynolds d/b/a Renny’s Bail Bonds, claims that the Arkansas County Circuit Court has erroneously ordered forfeiture of a bond written by Reynolds and directed that he be held in contempt and jailed for failure to pay the bond. Reynolds contends the only bond written by him in this matter was to the Saline County Circuit Court and he is under no obligation to the Arkansas County Circuit Court. We deny the writ because the record contains none of the documents necessary to our resolution of the issues presented.

We have often recited the rule that parties seeking relief in this court must bring up a record sufficient to show the trial court has erred. Malone v. State, 294 Ark. 376, 742 S.W.2d 945 (1988). Here, the record contains neither the final order forfeiting bond nor the order holding petitioner in contempt, both of which form the basis for Reynolds’ petition for writ of prohibition. While petitioner’s brief abstracts such orders, they are not in the record. Also, Reynolds has not favored us with a copy of the bond at issue.

This court will not reverse based upon unsubstantiated allegations contained in the abstract on appeal or in the pleadings. Based upon the record before us, we have no alternative but to deny the relief requested.

Writ denied.

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

Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.

This case is before us on a petition for writ of prohibition. The petitioner, Eugene Reynolds d/b/a Renny’s Bail Bonds, claims that the Arkansas County Circuit Court has erroneously ordered forfeiture of a bond written by Reynolds and directed that he be held in contempt and jailed for failure to pay the bond. Reynolds contends the only bond written by him in this matter was to the Saline County Circuit Court and he is under no obligation to the Arkansas County Circuit Court. We deny the writ because the record contains none of the documents necessary to our resolution of the issues presented.

We have often recited the rule that parties seeking relief in this court must bring up a record sufficient to show the trial court has erred. Malone v. State, 294 Ark. 376, 742 S.W.2d 945 (1988). Here, the record contains neither the final order forfeiting bond nor the order holding petitioner in contempt, both of which form the basis for Reynolds’ petition for writ of prohibition. While petitioner’s brief abstracts such orders, they are not in the record. Also, Reynolds has not favored us with a copy of the bond at issue.

This court will not reverse based upon unsubstantiated allegations contained in the abstract on appeal or in the pleadings. Based upon the record before us, we have no alternative but to deny the relief requested.

Writ denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

763 S.W.2d 660, 297 Ark. 506, 1989 Ark. LEXIS 35, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reynolds-v-rogers-ark-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack