Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Deer/Mt. Judea School District v. Kimbrell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 10, 2013No. CV-13-182Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partDonald L. Corbin, Justice

The appeal in the Beebe case is untimely, and I therefore respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion otherwise. I would grant the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal in Beebe, albeit for slightly different reasoning than argued in the State’s motion. Although the specific argument raised by the State is not well taken, the general idea of the untimeliness of the Beebe appeal gives me concern. This court’s appellate jurisdiction requires a timely appeal from a final order; we are obliged to raise jurisdictional issues on our own.

Relying on Mountain Pure LLC v. Affiliated Foods…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Arkansas Department of Correction v. WilliamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2009
  2. Walker v. Arkansas State Board of EducationSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2010
  3. WARREN WHOLESALE CO. v. McLane Co., Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2008
  4. Mountain Pure, LLC v. Affiliated Foods Southwest, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2006
  5. Nash v. Landmark Storage, LLCCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API