Legal Opinion

Heard v. Regions Bank

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 24, 2007No. 06-1040PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam;.

In a per curiam order dated March 15, 2007, we found certain deficiencies in Appellant’s addendum and record. We remanded the case to settle the record pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civil 6(e), stating it would be “manifestly unjust for the appeal to be dismissed . . . without giving Heard an opportunity to supply the deficiency.” Heard v. Regions Bank, 369 Ark. 274, 253 S.W.3d 422 (2007) (per curiam). Specifically, we said:

Further, because of Heard’s omission in the record, she has failed to include “relevant pleadings” in violation of Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4 — 2(a)(8), which…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Heard v. Regions BanksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2007

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas v. NowlinCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2008
  2. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas v. NowlinCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2008

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

Powered by the Exa API