Earls v. Harvest Credit Management VI-B, LLC

[J write separately because I have long believed that the best application of Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure should be substantial compliance. Mechanical application of Rule 4, and the attending jurisprudence, have yielded patently unjust results, and I have so stated. See Reichardt v. Creasey, 2010 Ark. App. 736, 379 S.W.3d 655. However, because this court steadfastly continues to embrace its striet-compliance jurisprudence, it should' be consistent. I therefore cannot join the dissent’s suggestion that this court should now create yet another exception in the application of…