Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants because the appellants' abstract was flagrantly deficient under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6). The court held that the deficient abstract prevented review of the summary-judgment ruling and rendered the appellees' motion to strike moot.
Holdings
- The abstract was flagrantly deficient because it omitted or inadequately summarized material pleadings, proceedings, exhibits, testimony, arguments, and the trial court's ruling necessary to understand the issues on appeal.
- The court could not review the merits of the summary-judgment ruling because the flagrantly deficient abstract made it impossible to determine whether the appellate court had the same materials relied upon by the trial court.
Questions Presented
- Whether the appellants' substitute brief and abstract complied with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6).
- Whether the Supreme Court could review the propriety of summary judgment when the abstract omitted or inadequately presented material portions of the record.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (10)
- Warnock v. Warnock, 336 Ark. 506, 988 S.W.2d 7(followed)
- City of West Memphis v. City of Marion, 332 Ark. 421, 965 S.W.2d 776(followed)
- Blunt v. Cartwright, 342 Ark. 662, 30 S.W.3d 737(followed)
- Luttrell v. City of Conway, 339 Ark. 408, 5 S.W.3d 464(followed)
- Cosgrove v. City of West Memphis, 327 Ark. 324, 938 S.W.2d 827(followed)
- Adams v. State, 276 Ark. 18, 631 S.W.2d 828(followed)
- In the Matter of the Estate of Brumley, 323 Ark. 431, 914 S.W.2d 735(followed)
- Mary Kay, Inc. v. Isbell, 336 Ark. 374, 986 S.W.2d 90(followed)
- Porter v. Porter, 329 Ark. 42, 945 S.W.2d 376(followed)
- Boren v. Worthen Nat'l Bank, 324 Ark. 416, 921 S.W.2d 934(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…