Schlaf v. Priest
This text of 929 S.W.2d 164 (Schlaf v. Priest) 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.
Opinion
In this original action, Respondent Frank Gilbert has filed a response to Petitioners’ motion to expedite and has moved the Court for judgment as a matter of law as to the factual allegations contained in the original petition. Mr. Gilbert moves in the alternative for appointment of a special master pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. Rule 6-5 (b), and he asks the Court to compel the Petitioners to respond to his requests for discovery.
Petitioners filed a motion to expedite on October 1, 1996. We granted the motion on October 7, 1996, relying on Petitioners’ statement that their challenge to the sufficiency of Proposed Amendment 9 would concern only legal issues. Petitioners clearly stated in their motion that they did not intend to offer proof on the factual allegations contained in their original petition; thus, we will be concerned only with the legal issues pertaining to the popular name and ballot tide. It is unnecessary to appoint a special master or to order discovery in this case, and we deny the motions.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
929 S.W.2d 164, 326 Ark. 275, 1996 Ark. LEXIS 519, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schlaf-v-priest-ark-1996.