Sturch v. Sturch

870 S.W.2d 720, 316 Ark. 53, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 94
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided February 21, 1994·No. 93-574·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

David Newbern, Justice.

Christi Sturch appeals a divorce decree from Pulaski County Chancery Court. We affirm the Chancellor’s decision pursuant to Ark. Rule Sup. Ct. 4-2(b)(2) due to the appellant’s flagrantly deficient abstract.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) requires an abstract to consist of material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters necessary to an understanding of the question presented to the court. In this appeal the appellant’s abstract consists solely of a one-half page portion of the Chancellor’s divorce decree. From this abstract it is impossible to locate any factors that led to the Chancellor’s ruling which resulted in this appeal. For this reason it is impossible to address adequately the point on appeal, and we will not attempt to do so.

Affirmed.

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

Sturch v. Sturch, 870 S.W.2d 720, 316 Ark. 53, 1994 Ark. LEXIS 94 (Ark. 1994).

870 S.W.2d 720 (Sturch v. Sturch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Baldwin v. Baldwin
76 S.W.3d 267 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2002)
Lee v. Villines
942 S.W.2d 844 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1997)
D. Hawkins, Inc. v. Schumacher
909 S.W.2d 640 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1995)
Bradford v. Bradford
894 S.W.2d 616 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1995)
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Scanlon
894 S.W.2d 885 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1995)