Coffelt v. Arkansas State Highway Commission
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1ConcurrenceSteele Hays, Justice
I agree with the majority that the testimony has been abstracted in question and answer form and in that respect it violates Rule 9 of our rules. Harris v. Arkansas Real Estate Commission, 274 Ark. 537, 627 S.W.2d 1 (1982). Admittedly, we have affirmed other cases on the basis of Rule 9 where the appellant failed to provide an abridgement and simply reproduced the record in near verbatim form. Oaklawn Jockey Club v. Jameson, 280 Ark. 150, 655 S.W.2d 417 (1983); Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed District, 239 Ark. 142, 387 S.W.2d 605 (1965). But in those cases the breach was far greater. In the…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- Ford v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
- Bank of Ozark v. IsaacsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
- Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. v. JamesonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
- Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
- Myers v. MuussSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.