Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

John Parker HEATHSCOTT v. Christopher C. RAFF; Sharon Priest et al.

APPEAL ERROR — MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL GRANTED. — Where, in the normal course of business, the supreme court would not have been able to resolve the issues before the general election, and where the issues involved appellant's eligibility to run for elected office, appellee's motion to expedite the appeal was granted, and court ordered a briefing schedule set.

PER CURIAM.

Appellee Christopher C. Raff moves for expedited consideration of the appeal by appellant John Parker Heathscott. Heathscott has appealed an order of the Pulaski County Circuit Court declaring that he is not "learned in the law," as required by Article 7, § 24, of the Arkansas Constitution for the office of prosecuting attorney, and removing his name from the ballot for the November 3, 1998 General Election. Raff makes this motion for fear that otherwise this court will not be able to resolve the issues in the appeal in the normal course of business before the General Election. The other parties have responded and agree with Raff's motion to expedite. Heathscott has not responded to the motion.

[1] We grant the motion to expedite this appeal and set the briefing schedule. The record in this matter shall be filed no later than Friday, July 31, 1998. Simultaneous briefs shall be filed by the parties no later than Monday, August 17, 1998. Responsive briefs shall be filed by the parties no later than Monday, August 24, 1998. There will be no reply briefs.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

HEATHSCOTT v. RAFF
(Jul 16, 1998)