Smith v. Pond

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Smith v. Pond

534 S.W.2d 769, 259 Ark. 564

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedApril 5, 1976

Docket75-352

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 534 S.W.2d 769 (Smith v. Pond) 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

Smith v. Pond, 534 S.W.2d 769, 259 Ark. 564 (Ark. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

This decree must be affirmed, owing to the appellants’ noncompliance with Supreme Court Rule 9. Instead of submitting an abstract of the record, as the rule requires, the appellants have simply printed the record, including 265 pages of testimony in question and answer form. That is followed by a ten-page brief, arguing only an issue of fact turning upon the preponderance of the evidence. Under our settled practice an affirmance is required. Sellers v. Harvey, 222 Ark. 804, 263 S.W. 2d 86; Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 239 Ark. 141, 387 S.W. 2d 605. As pointed out many years ago, the rule is for the convenience of the court, to aid in the dispatch of its business. St. Louis & S.F. R.R. v. Newman, 105 Ark. 63, 150 S.W. 560. This instance demonstrates the need for the rule. This case and thirteen others were in the weekly submission on March 29. The printed abstracts and briefs totaled 2,516 pages, plus a number of exhibits. Obviously the court’s constantly increasing caseload cannot be managed if records are printed in full, in disregard of the rule.

Decree affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM

This decree must be affirmed, owing to the appellants’ noncompliance with Supreme Court Rule 9. Instead of submitting an abstract of the record, as the rule requires, the appellants have simply printed the record, including 265 pages of testimony in question and answer form. That is followed by a ten-page brief, arguing only an issue of fact turning upon the preponderance of the evidence. Under our settled practice an affirmance is required. Sellers v. Harvey, 222 Ark. 804, 263 S.W. 2d 86; Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 239 Ark. 141, 387 S.W. 2d 605. As pointed out many years ago, the rule is for the convenience of the court, to aid in the dispatch of its business. St. Louis & S.F. R.R. v. Newman, 105 Ark. 63, 150 S.W. 560. This instance demonstrates the need for the rule. This case and thirteen others were in the weekly submission on March 29. The printed abstracts and briefs totaled 2,516 pages, plus a number of exhibits. Obviously the court’s constantly increasing caseload cannot be managed if records are printed in full, in disregard of the rule.

Decree affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

534 S.W.2d 769, 259 Ark. 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/smith-v-pond-ark-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack