Farrco Const. Co. v. Goleman
| Decision Date | 19 November 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. 79-277,79-277 |
| Citation | 589 S.W.2d 573,267 Ark. 159 |
| Parties | FARRCO CONSTRUCTION COMPANY et al., Appellants, v. Webster GOLEMAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Bridges, Young, Matthews, Holmes & Drake, Pine Bluff, for appellants.
Gibbs Ferguson, McGehee, for appellee.
This is an appeal of a Workers Compensation case by Farrco Construction Company and its insurance carrier. The appellant did not abstract the administrative trial judge's opinion, the Workers Compensation Commission decision nor the circuit court order, all of which favored appellee, Webster Goleman. We find this a violation of Rule 9(d) of the Supreme Court Rules.
We cannot distinguish this case from Manes v. M. O. V. E., Inc., et al., 261 Ark. 793, 552 S.W.2d 211 (1977) where we affirmed the Workers Compensation Commission order because the order was not abstracted by the appellant.
We explained in Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs, 263 Ark. 113, 563 S.W.2d 707 (1978), the necessity for the appellant's brief to properly contain an abstract of the record. In the case of Wade v. Franklin-Stricklin Land Surveyors, Inc., 264 Ark. 841, 575 S.W.2d 672 (1979), we referred to numerous recent cases which were affirmed because of noncompliance with Rule 9(d). See also Smith, Arkansas Appellate Practice; Abstracting the Record, 31 Ark.L.Rev. 359 (1977).
Affirmed.
HARRIS, C. J., not participating.
GEORGE ROSE SMITH, J., would affirm the judgment on its merits.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Burgess v. Burgess, 85-75
...we have stressed the necessity of an abstract that permits an adequate comprehension of the arguments on appeal. Farrco v. Goleman, 267 Ark. 159, 589 S.W.2d 573 (1979). Smith, Arkansas Appellate Practice; Abstracting the Record, 31 Ark.L.Rev. 359 The abstract in this case gives us nothing i......
-
Winters v. Elders, 95-1069
...Jolly v. Hartje, 294 Ark. 16, 740 S.W.2d 143 (1987); Zini v. Perciful, 289 Ark. 343, 711 S.W.2d 477 (1986); Farrco Construction et al. v. Goleman, 267 Ark. 159, 589 S.W.2d 573 (1979); Wells v. Paragon Printing Company, 249 Ark. 950, 462 S.W.2d 471 (1971). See also, Smith, Arkansas Practice ......
-
Cash v. Holder, 87-188
...to follow and intelligently decide the arguments on appeal, given the state of the abstract as presented. Farrco Construction Co. v. Coleman, 267 Ark. 159, 589 S.W.2d 573 (1979); Speed v. Mays, 226 Ark. 213, 288 S.W.2d 953 (1956); Ellington v. Remmel, 226 Ark. 569, 293 S.W.2d 452 (1956); We......
-
Jolly v. Hartje
...judgment or decree appealed from are essential constituents of the abstract, as we have frequently noted. Farrco Construction et al. v. Goleman, 267 Ark. 159, 589 S.W.2d 573 (1979); Zini v. Perciful, 289 Ark. 343, 711 S.W.2d 477 (1986); Wells v. Paragon Printing Company, 249 Ark. 950, 462 S......