TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Rose City Property Owners' Ass'n v. Thorne

ROSE CITY PROPERTY OWNERS' ASSOCIATION v. Mary THORNE, Mary Dover, Jack Keeling, C.L. Shaw, and William T. Snider, on Behalf of Themselves and all of the Citizens and Residents of the City North Little Rock, Arkansas

Rose City Prop. Owners' Ass'n v. Thorne, 770 S.W.2d 655 (Ark. 1989)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
May 30, 1989
Docket
No. 88-300
Judges
Dudley, Glaze, Hays, Merits, Would
Citations
770 S.W.2d 655299 Ark. 291989 Ark. LEXIS 260

Opinion of the Court — Dudley

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

Robert H. Dudley, Justice. On July 28, 1987, the appellees, in their capacity as North Little Rock taxpayers, filed a complaint in which they alleged an illegal exaction by the City of North Little Rock. The case was set for trial at 9:00 a.m., on March 2, 1988. The appellants sought to intervene at the last moment, 4:27 p.m., on March 1,1988. The trial court ruled that the motion to intervene was not timely filed. Appellants appeal the ruling. We affirm, without reaching the merits of the case, because the appellants did not comply with Rule 9(d) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.

The abstract consists essentially of a verbatim reprinting of much of the record. Some matters, it is true, have been omitted, but no discernible effort has been made to condense, by paraphrasing in the first person, much of the record contained in the abstract. Out of seventy-one (71) pages in appellants’ abstract of the record, at least sixty (60) pages are almost a verbatim reproduction of pleadings, exhibits, and dialogue among the trial judge and the attorneys. Under such circumstances we affirm under Rule 9(e)(2). Board of Education of Franklin County v. Ozark School District, 280 Ark. 15 , 655 S.W.2d 368 (1983), and Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. v. Jameson, 280 Ark. 150 , 655 S.W.2d 417 (1983).

Affirmed. Hays and Glaze, JJ., concurring, would affirm on the merits of the case.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1993: 12009: 12013: 119932026peak 1993 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Forrest City MacHine Works, Inc. v. Mosbacher851 S.W.2d 443 (Ark. 1993)
  2. Goodman v. State306 S.W.3d 443 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009)
  3. Brooks v. State2013 Ark. App. 563

Most recent

  1. Brooks v. State2013 Ark. App. 563
  2. Goodman v. State306 S.W.3d 443 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009)
  3. Forrest City MacHine Works, Inc. v. Mosbacher851 S.W.2d 443 (Ark. 1993)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Oaklawn Jockey Club, Inc. v. Jameson, 655 S.W.2d 417 (Ark. 1983) 8
Bd. of Educ. v. Ozark Sch. Dist. No. 14, 655 S.W.2d 368 (Ark. 1983) 3

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list