Jolly v. Hartje

Decision Date30 November 1987
Docket NumberNo. 86-68,86-68
Citation294 Ark. 16,740 S.W.2d 143
PartiesGloria J. JOLLY, Appellant, v. Judge George HARTJE, Jr., Faulkner County Circuit Court; Charles Castleberry, Faulkner County Sheriff; Sandy E. Jolly, Appellees.
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

William J. Velek, Greenbrier, for appellant.

Ronald L. Burton, Conway, for appellees.

HAYS, Justice.

Petitioner Gloria Jolly and Respondent Sandy Jolly were divorced in 1982. They have continued to engage in frequent disputes over property and child support. In February of 1986 Mrs. Jolly filed an action in the Faulkner Circuit Court claiming that Mr. Jolly had removed timber from lands held in trust for their two daughters. A series of hearings over widening issues followed and at one point Mrs. Jolly was held to be in contempt and sentenced to thirty days in jail with twenty-six days suspended. She appealed and that order was reversed. Jolly v. Jolly, 290 Ark. 352, 719 S.W.2d 430 (1986). While that appeal was pending she petitioned for prohibition, which was denied.

On October 20 and 21, the Faulkner circuit judge, sitting as circuit judge and special chancellor on exchange, conducted two days of non-jury hearings dealing with matters pending on both the law and chancery dockets. The hearings resulted in a judgment against Mr. Jolly for the value of timber removed and a decree which included findings that Mrs. Jolly had used the SCAN office to harass Mr. Jolly with complaints of child abuse. She was ordered to bring her complaints to the court.

Mrs. Jolly has appealed on a number of points: whether appellant was entitled to a trial by jury under the Arkansas Constitution; whether appellant was denied due process; whether appellant's motion for a continuance should have been granted; whether the court can privately question witnesses about the case being tried by banning a party and her attorney; whether it was a denial of free speech to prohibit appellant from petitioning SCAN; whether the trial judge should have recused.

We cannot reach the issues we are asked to decide. The appellant has given us almost nothing in the way of an abstract of the pleadings or testimony. In fact, the abstract consists of nothing more than a few sentences covering two hearings in March, two in June, 1986 and from two days of hearings in October. There is no abstract whatever of the pleadings, testimony, exhibits, orders and final judgment and decree. Appellant has referred us (in oral argument) to her brief and abstract filed in July, 1986 in connection with her appeal of the contempt order. But that offers no...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Williams v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 12, 1997
    ...we have "long held that the judgment appealed from is a bare essential of an abstract" citing numerous cases. In Jolly v. Hartje, 294 Ark. 16, 18, 740 S.W.2d 143, 144 (1987), we wrote, "Ordinarily the basic pleadings and judgment or decree appealed from are essential constituents of the abs......
  • Bohannon v. Arkansas State Bd. of Nursing
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 3, 1995
    ...appealed from are the bare essentials of an abstract. Logan County v. Tritt, 302 Ark. 81, 787 S.W.2d 239 (1990); Jolly v. Hartje, 294 Ark. 16, 740 S.W.2d 143 (1987). Appellant has failed to provide this. Yet, one of her points of appeal contains the following argument: "The Board's decision......
  • Garnett v. Crow
    • United States
    • Arkansas Court of Appeals
    • April 19, 2000
  • Winters v. Elders, 95-1069
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • April 29, 1996
    ...State Bd. of Nursing, 320 Ark. 169, 895 S.W.2d 923 (1995); Logan County v. Tritt, 302 Ark. 81, 787 S.W.2d 239 (1990); 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 5......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • THE END OF AN ERA? ABOLISHING THE ABSTRACT REQUIREMENT FOR ARKANSAS APPELLATE BRIEFS.
    • United States
    • Journal of Appellate Practice and Process Vol. 20 No. 2, September 2019
    • September 22, 2020
    ...that "[t]he appellant has failed to comply with Rule 9(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court, so we affirm the trial court"); Ki v. Hartje, 294 Ark. 16, 18, 740 S.W.2d 143, 144 (1987) ("We cannot decide the points argued for the want of an abstract and, accordingly, we must affirm under Rule......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT