Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Clayton v. Ideal Chemical & Supply Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 5, 1998No. 98-1113Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTom Glaze, Justice

When this court amended Ark. R. App. P. — Civ. 3(e) to require that a notice of appeal state that financial arrangements had been made with the court reporter, and added that a notice of appeal is invalid if it does not contain this statement, see per curiam order of June 23, 1997, I had serious reservations that the new requirement was necessary. I joined in the amendment because the sole expressed reason for adopting it was to eliminate delays in the appeal process. See Reporter’s Notes, [March] 1997 Amendment to Ark. R. App. P. — Civ. 3. It now appears that another purpose was intended —…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Rogers v. Tudor InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  2. Green v. WillifordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  3. Quality Fixtures, Inc. v. Multi-Purpose Facilities BoardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998

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

Powered by the Exa API