Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Forrest City MacHine Works, Inc. v. Mosbacher

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 19, 1993No. 92-339Published

1ConcurrenceRobert H. Dudley, Justice

I concur in denying relief to the appellants, but I would do so by dismissing the appeal because the appellants’ abstract is flagrantly deficient. In cases where an appellant has made no meaningful effort to comply with Rule 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, it has been our longstanding practice to either affirm or dismiss the appeal without considering the merits. In this case, appellant has made no meaningful effort to comply with Rule 9.

The essential facts involved in this appeal are that appellee Twin City Bank loaned money to appellant Forrest City Machine Works,…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. v. JamesonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
  2. Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
  3. Harris v. Arkansas Real Estate CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  4. Coffelt v. Arkansas State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  5. Rose City Property Owners' Ass'n v. ThorneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API