Ferguson v. Brick
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Per curiam
We deny movant permission to file an amicus curiae brief. Last week we denied a similar motion. These rulings represent a slight shift in the practice of this Court and, for the benefit of the bar, we issue this per curiam opinion.
The term “amicus curiae” is old Latin which literally means “a friend of the court.” 3A C.J.S. Amicus Curiae % 2 (1973). Historically, courts welcomed the aid of an amicus since “it is for the honor of a court of j ustice to avoid error. ’ ’ The Protector v. Geering, Hardees 85-86 (1656) 145 E.R. 394 (Ex.); see Note, Amici Curiae, 34 Harv. L. Rev. 773 n. 5 (1921).…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Craig v. HarneySupreme Court of the United States · 1947
- Arnold E. Strasser v. Joseph A. Doorley, Jr.Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1970
- New England Patriots Football Club, Inc. v. University of ColoradoCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1979
- Lawson v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1949
- Leigh v. EngleDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois · 1982
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- Arkansas Transit Homes, Inc. v. Aetna Life & CasualtySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
- Teston v. Arkansas State Board of Chiropractic ExaminersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2005
- Holiday Inn v. ColemanCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1989
- Teston v. ARK. STATE BD. OF CHIROP. EXAM.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2005
- Arkansas Department of Human Services v. CouchCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1991
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.