Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Coffelt v. Arkansas State Highway Commission

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 30, 1986No. 86-34Published

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

  1. Ford v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  2. Bank of Ozark v. IsaacsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
  3. Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. v. JamesonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
  4. Gray v. Ouachita Creek Watershed Dist.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1965
  5. Myers v. MuussSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984

8 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