Trout v. Mathis

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Trout v. Mathis

708 S.W.2d 629, 289 Ark. 24, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1885

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedMay 5, 1986

Docket86-7

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 708 S.W.2d 629 (Trout v. Mathis) 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

Trout v. Mathis, 708 S.W.2d 629, 289 Ark. 24, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1885 (Ark. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

David Newbern, Justice.

We affirm in this case because the abstract of the record provided by the appellants, pro se, is flagrantly deficient. Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals 9(e)(2).

The appellants appeal from a dismissal of their claim. They argue the case was improperly dismissed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 41. They contend the case was once dismissed voluntarily in an Arkansas court and then again by a United States District Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that the second dismissal was not of the sort, as provided in Rule 41, to preclude them from bringing the claim again. There is no abstract of the order of the court with respect to the voluntary dismissal. Nor are the federal court order and the order appealed from here abstracted. A justice reading the abstract supplied has no means of evaluating these actions of the courts in the context of the appellants’ contentions with respect to Rule 41.

For this court to continue to operate efficiently each justice must be able to decide the case on the basis of the abstract without having to refer to the record. We cannot do that in this case. The abstracting requirement is the same for parties who appeal pro se as it is for those who are represented by attorneys. Bryant v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 302, 705 S.W.2d 9 (1986); Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984).

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., not participating.

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

David Newbern, Justice.

We affirm in this case because the abstract of the record provided by the appellants, pro se, is flagrantly deficient. Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals 9(e)(2).

The appellants appeal from a dismissal of their claim. They argue the case was improperly dismissed pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 41. They contend the case was once dismissed voluntarily in an Arkansas court and then again by a United States District Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and that the second dismissal was not of the sort, as provided in Rule 41, to preclude them from bringing the claim again. There is no abstract of the order of the court with respect to the voluntary dismissal. Nor are the federal court order and the order appealed from here abstracted. A justice reading the abstract supplied has no means of evaluating these actions of the courts in the context of the appellants’ contentions with respect to Rule 41.

For this court to continue to operate efficiently each justice must be able to decide the case on the basis of the abstract without having to refer to the record. We cannot do that in this case. The abstracting requirement is the same for parties who appeal pro se as it is for those who are represented by attorneys. Bryant v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 302, 705 S.W.2d 9 (1986); Walker v. State, 283 Ark. 339, 676 S.W.2d 460 (1984).

Affirmed.

Purtle, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

708 S.W.2d 629, 289 Ark. 24, 1986 Ark. LEXIS 1885, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/trout-v-mathis-ark-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack