Valley v. Bogard
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Per curiam
Mr. Valley files a motion for us to reconsider AM. per curiam issued on May 12, 2000, where we were compelled to deny his motion to stay and accelerate this proceeding because Mr. Valley failed to comply with Ark. R. App. P. — Civil 3(e) (2000). In doing so, he failed to file a notice of appeal showing he had made financial arrangements for the preparation of the record, thus, making it impossible to expedite and decide Mr. Valley’s appeal before the May 23, 2000, primary election.
In his reconsideration motion, Mr. Valley states he has filed an amended notice of appeal and refers to an…
2Cited by2 opinions
- Valley v. BogardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
- Valley v. BogardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000