TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Young v. State

Vaugn YOUNG v. STATE of Arkansas

Young v. State, 823 S.W.2d 911 (Ark. 1992)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 17, 1992
Docket
No. CR 91-219
Citations
823 S.W.2d 911308 Ark. 3721992 Ark. LEXIS 69

Opinion of the Court

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

Per Curiam. The appellant, Vaugn Young, filed his abstract and brief in this case. The State filed the appellee’s brief. Prior to the time his reply brief was due, the appellant’s attorney realized that his abstract was insufficient and filed a motion asking that he be allowed to supplement his abstract and brief. Since the case is not yet ready for submission, we grant the motion and allow the appellant fifteen days within which to file a substituted abstract and brief.

Rule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals provides that, when it does not cause an unreasonable or unjust delay in the deposition of an appeal, an appellant’s attorney may be allowed time to reprint his brief, at his own expense, to conform to Rule 9(d). Granting the motion in this case will not cause an unjust delay since the case is not yet ready for submission and other cases are ready for submission. Upon filing of the substituted abstract and brief, the appellee will be afforded an opportunity to revise or supplement its brief, at the expense of the appellant’s counsel.

How later courts describe this case

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

1994: 11996: 119942026peak 1994 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Moncrief v. State925 S.W.2d 776 (Ark. 1996)
  2. Trapp v. Economy Engineering Co.871 S.W.2d 345 (Ark. 1994)

Most recent

  1. Moncrief v. State925 S.W.2d 776 (Ark. 1996)
  2. Trapp v. Economy Engineering Co.871 S.W.2d 345 (Ark. 1994)

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 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

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