Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Mann v. Pierce

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 1, 2016No. CV-15-595Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partRhonda K. Wood, Justice

The majority begins a discussion of the merits of the appeal stating, “We must first address the notice of appeal.” This statement is an error. “[Ajbsent an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction, an appellate court will not raise an issue unless argued by the parties on appeal.” Edwards v. Edwards, 2009 Ark. 580, at *8, 357 S.W.3d 445, 450. Accordingly, I concur in the majority opinion as to the merits of the case but dissent from the majority’s discu'ssion on the sufficiency of the notice of appeal.

[1SI believe it was an error for the court to address the sufficiency of the notice of appeal…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Kontrick v. RyanSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
  2. J.W. Reynolds Lumber Co. v. Smackover State BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  3. Summerville v. ThrowerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2007
  4. Edwards v. EdwardsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2009
  5. Nance v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2014

1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API