Legal Opinion

Ekelman v. Lockhart

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 17, 1992No. 91-343Published

1Per curiam

William F. Ekelman asks permission to file a handwritten brief. We have held that a handwritten brief will be allowed on two conditions — one, that the movant has no access to a typewriter and, two, makes a showing that there is substantial merit to the action. Patterson v. State, 289 Ark. 564, 712 S.W.2d 922 (1986). Since the adoption of that rule some years ago we have had scores of motions for handwritten briefs. Almost without exception they have been denied, not due to handwriting, but because they uniformly fail to make any attempt to show there is substantial merit to their cause. In…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Patterson v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API