Legal Opinion · Dissent

Coble v. Lockhart

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 9, 1987No. 87-182 & 87-218Published

1DissentJohn I. Purtle, Justice

The appellant has filed a handwritten motion to proceed in forma pauperis and by handwritten pleadings and argument. The motion, which is subscribed and sworn to, establishes that the movant is in the Arkansas Department of Correction and that he has no funds in the institutional account assigned to him or anywhere else. Without question he is a pauper and almost as obvious is the fact that he does not have access to a secretary or a typewriter. It is sheer folly to deny petitioner’s request because of his failure to comply with Rule 28, the pauper’s oath, since everyone knows he is a pauper.

W…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Glick v. LockhartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  2. Hayes v. LockhartSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API