Legal Opinion · Dissent

Abramson v. Eldridge

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 4, 2004No. 03-450Published

1DissentAnnabelle Clinton Imber, Justice

The majority improperly considers a case that is moot. In doing so, this court endorses the bootstrapping of an otherwise unappealable case onto a case properly before us. Therefore, I must respectfully dissent.

The order in this case reflects the existence of an order in a separate case that provides the same remedy from which Mr. Abramson now appeals. Thus, the majority decision in this case will have no practical legal effect. It is well established that the appellate courts of this state will not review moot issues. Delancy v. State, 356 Ark. 259, 151 S.W.3d 301 (2004); Cotten v. Fooks,…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Cotten v. FooksSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
  2. Delancy v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2004
  3. Abramson v. EldridgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API