Wooten v. Daniels

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Wooten v. Daniels

607 S.W.2d 96, 271 Ark. 131, 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1428

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas

DecidedNovember 12, 1980

DocketE 80-118

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 607 S.W.2d 96 (Wooten v. Daniels) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wooten v. Daniels, 607 S.W.2d 96, 271 Ark. 131, 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1428 (Ark. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam

This case was erroneously placed on our docket as an appeal. The only document filed with this court is a letter from the father of the claimant Mark Wooten requesting an extension of the deadline for filing a petition for review with this court. Thus, there has been no appeal in this case.

We deny the request for extension for two reasons. First, we have no authority to extend the 15-day deadline for filing petition for review as prescribed in Ark. Stat. Ann., § 81-1107(d)(7)""(Supp. 1979)- Secondly, the o'nly evidence presented by claimant’s father with respect to his authority to act for the claimant was a power of attorney giving him authority to purchase and sell personal property on behalf of the claimant. It did not authorize him to represent the claimant in the manner purported in the letter.

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

Per Curiam

This case was erroneously placed on our docket as an appeal. The only document filed with this court is a letter from the father of the claimant Mark Wooten requesting an extension of the deadline for filing a petition for review with this court. Thus, there has been no appeal in this case.

We deny the request for extension for two reasons. First, we have no authority to extend the 15-day deadline for filing petition for review as prescribed in Ark. Stat. Ann., § 81-1107(d)(7)""(Supp. 1979)- Secondly, the o'nly evidence presented by claimant’s father with respect to his authority to act for the claimant was a power of attorney giving him authority to purchase and sell personal property on behalf of the claimant. It did not authorize him to represent the claimant in the manner purported in the letter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

607 S.W.2d 96, 271 Ark. 131, 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1428, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wooten-v-daniels-arkctapp-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack