Wade v. Franklin-Stricklin Land Surveyors, Inc.

575 S.W.2d 672, 264 Ark. 841, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1263
Supreme Court of Arkansas·Decided January 15, 1979·No. 78-173·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

This appeal is affirmed under Rule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas because appellant failed to abstract any of the record in violation of Rule 9(d).

Rule 9 requires the abstract of the record to be a condensation of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents in the record. The appellant totally failed to comply with the rule. In numerous recent cases we have found it necessary to affirm for noncompliance with Rule 9(d): Dyke Industries v. Johnson Const. Co., et al, 261 Ark. 790, 551 S.W. 2d 217 (1977); Manes v. M.O.V.E., Inc., et al, 261 Ark. 793, 552 S.W. 2d 211 (1977) ; Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Carter, 261 Ark. 795, 551 S.W. 2d 211 (1977); Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs, 263 Ark. 113, 563 S.W. 2d 707 (1978); Weston v. Ponder, 263 Ark. 370, 565 S.W. 2d 31 (1978); Merritt v. Merritt, 263 Ark. 432, 565 S.W. 2d 603 (1978); Smith v. Smith, 263 Ark. 578, 567 S.W. 2d 88 (1978).

Affirmed.

We agree.

Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Holt, JJ.

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

Wade v. Franklin-Stricklin Land Surveyors, Inc., 575 S.W.2d 672, 264 Ark. 841, 1979 Ark. LEXIS 1263 (Ark. 1979).

575 S.W.2d 672 (Wade v. Franklin-Stricklin Land Surveyors, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Coffelt v. Arkansas State Highway Commission
712 S.W.2d 283 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1986)
Bethea v. City of Little Rock
612 S.W.2d 320 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1981)
Smith v. Bullard
610 S.W.2d 888 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1981)
Farrco Construction Co. v. Goleman
589 S.W.2d 573 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 1979)