Wade v. Franklin-Stricklin Land Surveyors, Inc.
Cases that cite this one
4 later published cases cite this decision.
- Coffelt v. Arkansas State Highway Commission (Ark. 1986)
- Smith v. Bullard (Ark. 1981)
- Bethea v. City of Little Rock (Ark. 1981)
- Farrco Construction Co. v. Goleman (Ark. 1979)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This appeal is affirmed under Rule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas because appellant failed to abstract any of the record in violation of Rule 9(d).
Rule 9 requires the abstract of the record to be a condensation of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents in the record. The appellant totally failed to comply with the rule. In numerous recent cases we have found it necessary to affirm for noncompliance with Rule 9(d): Dyke Industries v. Johnson Const. Co., et al, 261 Ark. 790, 551 S.W. 2d 217 (1977); Manes v. M.O.V.E., Inc., et al, 261 Ark. 793, 552 S.W. 2d 211 (1977) ; Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Carter, 261 Ark. 795, 551 S.W. 2d 211 (1977); Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs, 263 Ark. 113, 563 S.W. 2d 707 (1978); Weston v. Ponder, 263 Ark. 370, 565 S.W. 2d 31 (1978); Merritt v. Merritt, 263 Ark. 432, 565 S.W. 2d 603 (1978); Smith v. Smith, 263 Ark. 578, 567 S.W. 2d 88 (1978).
Affirmed.
We agree.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.