Muldrow v. Douglass, 93-719
Decision Date | 21 February 1994 |
Docket Number | No. 93-719,93-719 |
Citation | 316 Ark. 86,870 S.W.2d 736 |
Parties | Calvin MULDROW d/b/a Muldrow Bonding Company, Appellant, v. Lee DOUGLASS, Insurance Commissioner, Arkansas Insurance Department, Appellee. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Sheila F. Campbell, Little Rock, for appellant.
Jeannette Denham, Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant, Calvin Muldrow, appeals a Pulaski Circuit Court decision upholding the Arkansas Insurance Commissioner's finding that appellant had lost his status regarding the security deposit for bail bondsmen. Since appellant was no longer qualified for the lesser statutory minimum deposit, the required security deposit increased from $25,000 to $100,000. We have jurisdiction to hear this case since it necessitates our interpretation of a statute, Ark.Code Ann. § 17-17-205 (1987). However, we do not reach the merits of this case because appellant's abstract is flagrantly deficient.
The abstract presented is virtually a verbatim copy of the transcript. In it is almost every typewritten word of the transcript, including certificates of service on pleadings. In fact, there are more pages in the abstract submitted (85) than are in the actual transcript (79). The cover page and index to the transcript are included verbatim in the abstract.
The abstract should contain an impartial condensation of only the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other materials in the transcript as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to the court for decision. Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 4-2(a)(6). This court has stated that an abstract that is a mere reprint of the transcript, or substantial parts of it, may preclude this court from reaching the merits of an appeal. Board of Educ. of Franklin Co. v. Ozark School Dist. No. 14, 280 Ark. 15, 655 S.W.2d 368 (1983). This case falls into that category, and we therefore affirm.
In my three years on the court, we have not affirmed a case for failure to condense under Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 4-2(a)(6), formerly Rule 9, until today. The reason is obvious. We look at abstracts of the record that provide too much differently from those that provide too little. In other words, to warrant the harsh result of an affirmance under Rule 4-2(a)(6) for providing excessive material in the abstract, the violation must be of the most serious order. One factor that we consider in assessing whether to affirm because an abstract is not sufficiently condensed is whether this lapse has caused the court a prodigious waste of time. See Forrest City Mach. Works v. Mosbacher, 312 Ark. 578, 851 S.W.2d 443 (1993); Oaklawn Jockey Club v. Jameson, 280 Ark. 150, 655 S.W.2d 417 (1983) (J. Smith, concurring opinion).
Enforcing Rule 4-2(a)(6) is a relatively simple matter when a material part of the record is not abstracted such as the judgment, the will at issue, a pertinent jury instruction, or testimony. See Dixon v. State, 314 Ark. 378, 863 S.W.2d 282 (1993) ( ); Davis v. Peebles, 313 Ark. 654, 857 S.W.2d 825 (1993) ( ); Haynes v. State, 313 Ark. 407, 855 S.W.2d 313 (1993) ( ); Watson v. State, 313 Ark. 304, 854 S.W.2d 332 (1993) ( ); Edwards v. Neuse, 312 Ark. 302, 849 S.W.2d 479 (1993) ( ); Stephens Prod. Co. v. Johnson, 311 Ark. 206, 842 S.W.2d 851 (1993) ( ); Gilmer v. State, 308 Ark. 506, 824 S.W.2d 343 (1992) ( ); Hunter v. Williams, 308 Ark. 276, 823 S.W.2d 894 (1992) ( ); D.J., A Juvenile v. State, 308 Ark. 37, 821 S.W.2d 782 (1992) ( ); Samples v. Samples, 306 Ark. 184, 810 S.W.2d 951 (1991) ( ); Fruit v. Lockhart, 304 Ark. 457, 802 S.W.2d 930 (1991) ( ); Pennington v. City of Sherwood, 304 Ark. 362, 802 S.W.2d 456 (1991) ( ). Under such circumstances, an objective test on the materiality of the omission can readily be applied.
With regard to abstracts where we are given too much and there has been a failure to condense the material adequately, the issue becomes more subjective on the part of this court. I cannot conclude in this case that the abstract is flagrantly deficient under the Rule or that it has occasioned a prodigious waste of time for the court. True, the abstract is 85 pages, and the record is only 79 pages. But the abstract is not...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Parker v. Parker
...by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5). A word-for-word transcription of the record is not an abstract under our rules. See Muldrow v. Douglass, 316 Ark. 86, 870 S.W.2d 736 (1994). Our rules state that the addendum should contain those documents that are necessary for the understanding of the case a......
-
Arkansas Dept. of Human Services v. Southerland
...S.W.2d 846 (1996), to instances in which verbatim copies of the transcript are submitted as an abstract, see, e.g., Muldrow v. Douglass, 316 Ark. 86, 870 S.W.2d 736 (1994). Any deficiencies in appellant's abstract do not rise to these levels and are not so flagrant as to make a decision "we......
- Martin v. National Bank of Commerce of El Dorado
-
Bradford v. State, CA CR06-776 (Ark. App. 3/21/2007), CA CR06-776.
...of the witnesses' testimony, but has instead reproduced it verbatim Page 2 in question-and-answer format. See Muldrow v. Douglass, 316 Ark. 86, 870 S.W.2d 736 (1994). We direct appellant to submit a substituted brief that contains a revised abstract that provides a condensation of the witne......