Stilley v. Young

28 S.W.3d 858, 342 Ark. 378, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 468
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedOctober 12, 2000
Docket00-1119
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 28 S.W.3d 858 (Stilley v. Young) 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
Stilley v. Young, 28 S.W.3d 858, 342 Ark. 378, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 468 (Ark. 2000).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The appellant/intervenor, Oscar Stilley, seeks an expedited briefing schedule and decision in conjunction with the appeal of a Saline County Circuit Court decision. We deny the motion.

The appellant filed his motion to expedite on Thursday, October 5, 2000, and this matter came before this Court on the following Wednesday, October 11, 2000. The appellant has made no request for a stay, but asserts the following:

The county board of election commissioners is required to “prepare official absentee ballots and deliver them to the county clerk for mailing to all qualified applicants as soon as practicable before the last day on which the ballot will be counted but in any event not less than twenty-five (25) days before any election.” Ark. Code Ann. [§] 7-5-407. Mertz v. State, 318 Ark. 239, 884 S.W.2d 264 (1994).
By the calculations of undersigned, the 25 day deadline will not be passed if this cause is decided by October 12, 2000, same being a regular day of decision for the Court. Appellant prays that the scheduling order provide for the completion of this appeal in time for decision on or before October 12, 2000.

The appellant asks us to require the appellees to present a brief in time for the Court to consider this case prior to October 12, 2000, so that the case will be decided prior to the commencement of absentee balloting, which begins on October 13, 2000, for the November 7, 2000, election. To do so would not only be unfair to the appellees, it would also not give this Court the time needed for deliberation of the issue or issues to be presented. See Stilley v. Bradley, 342 Ark. 274, 27 S.W.3d 436 (2000); McCuen v. Harris, 318 Ark. 522, 891 S.W.2d 350 (1994). We, therefore, must deny the motion for expedited consideration.

Denied.

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

Related

Clement v. Daniels
235 S.W.3d 521 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2006)
House v. Fogleman
195 S.W.3d 897 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2004)
COM. TO EST. SHERWOOD FIRE DEPT. v. Hillman
109 S.W.3d 641 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2003)
Committee to Establish Sherwood Fire Department v. Hillman
109 S.W.3d 641 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2003)
Republican Party of Arkansas v. Kilgore
98 S.W.3d 796 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2002)
Ward v. Priest
88 S.W.3d 416 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2002)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 S.W.3d 858, 342 Ark. 378, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stilley-v-young-ark-2000.