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

Christi Lynn STURCH v. James Paul STURCH

APPEAL ERROR — ABSTRACT FLAGRANTLY DEFICIENT. — Arkansas Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) requires an abstract to consist of material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters necessary to an understanding of the question presented to the court; where appellant's abstract consisted solely of a one-half page portion of the chancellor's divorce decree, the abstract was flagrantly deficient; it was impossible to locate any factors that led to the chancellor's ruling, and it was impossible to address adequately the point on appeal.

DAVID NEWBERN, Justice.

Christi Sturch appeals a divorce decree from Pulaski County Chancery Court. We affirm the Chancellor's decision pursuant to Ark. Rule Sup. Ct. 4-2(b)(2) due to the appellant's flagrantly deficient abstract.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) requires an abstract to consist of material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters necessary to an understanding of the question presented to the court. In this appeal the appellant's abstract consists solely of a one-half page portion of the Chancellor's divorce decree. From this abstract it is impossible to locate any factors that led to the Chancellor's ruling which resulted in this appeal. For this reason it is impossible to address adequately the point on appeal, and we will not attempt to do so.

Affirmed.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

STURCH v. STURCH
(Feb 21, 1994)