Legal Opinion

Smith v. Pond

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 5, 1976No. 75-352PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Per curiam

This decree must be affirmed, owing to the appellants’ noncompliance with Supreme Court Rule 9. Instead of submitting an abstract of the record, as the rule requires, the appellants have simply printed the record, including 265 pages of testimony in question and answer form. That is followed by a ten-page brief, arguing only an issue of fact turning upon the preponderance of the evidence. Under our settled practice an affirmance is required. Sellers v. Harvey, 222 Ark. 804, 263 S.W. 2d 86; Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist., 239 Ark. 141, 387 S.W. 2d 605. As pointed out many years ago,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
  2. Sellers v. HarveySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1953
  3. St. Louis & San Francisco Railroad v. NewmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Harris v. Arkansas Real Estate CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  2. Coffelt v. Arkansas State Highway CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  3. Beavers v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979

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

Powered by the Exa API