Sutton v. Central Production Credit Ass'n

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Sutton v. Central Production Credit Ass'n

745 S.W.2d 588, 294 Ark. 335, 1988 Ark. LEXIS 166

DecidedJanuary 19, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 745 S.W.2d 588 (Sutton v. Central Production Credit Ass'n) 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

Sutton v. Central Production Credit Ass'n, 745 S.W.2d 588, 294 Ark. 335, 1988 Ark. LEXIS 166 (Ark. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The court reporter in this case is Carl L. Arrington. The clerk refused to docket the transcript the petitioner tendered because it did not comply with the uniform standards set forth in our per curiam dated July 7, 1986.

The clerk was right in refusing the transcript. Mr. Arrington has been warned before, by letter from our clerk dated March 2, 1987, that his transcripts were not in compliance.

The petitioner’s remedy is threefold. First, a complaint can be made to the judge that his court reporter is not preparing proper transcripts. A suggestion from him would probably prompt his court reporter to prepare a proper transcript. Second, a civil suit may be filed against the court reporter for damages for breach of contract and loss of the right to appeal. An alternative claim of negligence could be made. Third, a complaint may be filed with the Supreme Court Committee on Court Reporters. The Chairman is Circuit Judge Charles Eddy of Morrilton. The petitioner may seek all three remedies simultaneously, if he wishes.

Motion denied without prejudice.

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

Per Curiam.

The court reporter in this case is Carl L. Arrington. The clerk refused to docket the transcript the petitioner tendered because it did not comply with the uniform standards set forth in our per curiam dated July 7, 1986.

The clerk was right in refusing the transcript. Mr. Arrington has been warned before, by letter from our clerk dated March 2, 1987, that his transcripts were not in compliance.

The petitioner’s remedy is threefold. First, a complaint can be made to the judge that his court reporter is not preparing proper transcripts. A suggestion from him would probably prompt his court reporter to prepare a proper transcript. Second, a civil suit may be filed against the court reporter for damages for breach of contract and loss of the right to appeal. An alternative claim of negligence could be made. Third, a complaint may be filed with the Supreme Court Committee on Court Reporters. The Chairman is Circuit Judge Charles Eddy of Morrilton. The petitioner may seek all three remedies simultaneously, if he wishes.

Motion denied without prejudice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

745 S.W.2d 588, 294 Ark. 335, 1988 Ark. LEXIS 166, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sutton-v-central-production-credit-assn-ark-1988.