TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sturch v. Sturch

Christi Lynn STURCH v. James Paul STURCH

Sturch v. Sturch, 870 S.W.2d 720 (Ark. 1994)
Download
Format
Include

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

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas · State Highest Courts
Decided
February 21, 1994
Docket
No. 93-574
Judges
Newbern
Citations
870 S.W.2d 720316 Ark. 531994 Ark. LEXIS 94

Opinion of the Court — Newbern

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

David Newbern, Justice. Christi Sturch appeals a divorce decree from Pulaski County Chancery Court. We affirm the Chancellor’s decision pursuant to Ark. Rule Sup. Ct. 4-2(b)(2) due to the appellant’s flagrantly deficient abstract.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) requires an abstract to consist of material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters necessary to an understanding of the question presented to the court. In this appeal the appellant’s abstract consists solely of a one-half page portion of the Chancellor’s divorce decree. From this abstract it is impossible to locate any factors that led to the Chancellor’s ruling which resulted in this appeal. For this reason it is impossible to address adequately the point on appeal, and we will not attempt to do so.

Affirmed.

How later courts describe this case

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

1995: 31997: 12002: 119952026peak 1995 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. D. Hawkins, Inc. v. Schumacher909 S.W.2d 640 (Ark. 1995)
  2. Lee v. Villines942 S.W.2d 844 (Ark. 1997)
  3. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Scanlon894 S.W.2d 885 (Ark. 1995)
  4. Baldwin v. Baldwin76 S.W.3d 267 (Ark. 2002)
  5. Bradford v. Bradford894 S.W.2d 616 (Ark. Ct. App. 1995)

Most recent

  1. Baldwin v. Baldwin76 S.W.3d 267 (Ark. 2002)
  2. Lee v. Villines942 S.W.2d 844 (Ark. 1997)
  3. D. Hawkins, Inc. v. Schumacher909 S.W.2d 640 (Ark. 1995)
  4. Bradford v. Bradford894 S.W.2d 616 (Ark. Ct. App. 1995)
  5. Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Scanlon894 S.W.2d 885 (Ark. 1995)

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