MERRITT ET AL v. MERRITT ET AL

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

No. 77-357

Attorney(S)

Eugene J. Mazzanti, for appellants. Charles A. Walls, Jr., for appellee.

Judges

DARRELL. HICKMAN, Justice.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion arises from an appeal to the Supreme Court of Arkansas following a decision by the Lonoke Chancery Court, Third Division. The appellants sought review but failed to comply with procedural requirements regarding the abstraction of the trial record. The procedural posture is an appeal from a chancery court judgment, with the Supreme Court affirming the lower court’s decision.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the appellant’s failure to properly abstract the record on appeal, in violation of Rule 9 of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court, warrants affirmance of the lower court’s judgment.
Whether submitting an abstract of the record in the appellants’ reply brief is proper under the court rules.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
Weston v. Ponder, 263 Ark. 370, 565 S.W.2d 31 (1978)	Affirmance of appeal due to violation of Rule 9 concerning abstracting the record	Used as controlling authority to affirm the current appeal for the same procedural deficiency

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court’s analysis centered on strict adherence to Rule 9(e)(2) of the Arkansas Supreme Court Rules, which governs the abstraction of records on appeal. The appellants failed to include any portion of the trial records or testimony in their initial brief, a fundamental requirement for appellate review. Although the appellees included some testimony favorable to their position, the appellants’ failure was deemed "flagrantly deficient." The appellants' attempt to cure this defect by submitting an abstract in their reply brief was improper under the court’s procedural rules. Relying on precedent from Weston v. Ponder, the court emphasized that noncompliance with Rule 9 justifies affirmance without further consideration of the merits.

Holding and Implications

The appeal is affirmed.

The court’s decision directly results in the affirmation of the lower court’s judgment due to the appellants’ procedural failure to comply with Rule 9. No new legal precedent was established; rather, the ruling reinforces the importance of complying with appellate procedural rules, particularly the requirement to properly abstract the record in the initial brief. The decision underscores that failure to meet these procedural standards precludes appellate relief regardless of the underlying merits.

Show full summary ...

Mrs. Russell L. MERRITT et al v. J. W. Merritt et al

1. APPEAL ERROR — FAILURE OF APPELLANT TO ABSTRACT RECORD — AFFIRMANCE ON APPEAL. — Where appellant failed to abstract the record on appeal in compliance with Rule 9, Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court, held, the appeal is affirmed. 2. APPEAL ERROR — ABSTRACT OF RECORD — ABSTRACT IN REPLY BRIEF IMPROPER. — An abstract of the record in the appellants' reply brief is improper.

DARRELL. HICKMAN, Justice.

This appeal is affirmed because we find the abstract of the record to be flagrantly deficient in violation of Rule 9(e)(2). The appellants did not abstract any of the trial records or testimony in their brief. The appellees abstracted some of the testimony. However, it can be safely said the evidence abstracted b). the appellees is favorable to their position. The appellants apologized in their reply brief for not complying with Rule 9 and offered an abstract of the records and testimony. However, an abstract in the appellants' reply brief is improper. We recently affirmed a case for a similar violation of Rule 9. Weston v. Ponder, 263 Ark. 370, 565 S.W.2d 31 (1978).

affirmed.

We agree. HARRIS, C.J., and BYRD and HOWARD