FURNAS v. KIMBRELL, 2014 Ark. 529 (2014)
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
Number: inarco20141211022
Visitors: 4
Filed: Dec. 11, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 11, 2014
Summary: PER CURIAM. By previously issued per curiam opinion handed down on December 4, 2014, we ordered Appellants to supplement their brief with the prior orders and judgments that related to our opinion in Kimbrell v. McCleskey, 2012 Ark. 443 , 424 S.W.3d 844 . Upon further review, we have determined that the pleadings and motions from the prior appeal are essential to an understanding of the case in the current appeal. We therefore order appellants to supplement their addendum with copies of the
Summary: PER CURIAM. By previously issued per curiam opinion handed down on December 4, 2014, we ordered Appellants to supplement their brief with the prior orders and judgments that related to our opinion in Kimbrell v. McCleskey, 2012 Ark. 443 , 424 S.W.3d 844 . Upon further review, we have determined that the pleadings and motions from the prior appeal are essential to an understanding of the case in the current appeal. We therefore order appellants to supplement their addendum with copies of thes..
More
PER CURIAM.
By previously issued per curiam opinion handed down on December 4, 2014, we ordered Appellants to supplement their brief with the prior orders and judgments that related to our opinion in Kimbrell v. McCleskey, 2012 Ark. 443, 424 S.W.3d 844. Upon further review, we have determined that the pleadings and motions from the prior appeal are essential to an understanding of the case in the current appeal. We therefore order appellants to supplement their addendum with copies of these documents in addition to the documents we required in the December 4, 2014 per curiam. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8) (2014). Appellants' omission of these items from the addendum renders appellants' brief deficient, and we order rebriefing in this case pursuant to Rule 4-2(b)(3). Therefore, in accordance with Rule 4-2(c)(2), we give appellants fifteen days to submit a conforming brief by filing a supplemental addendum.
While we have noted the above-mentioned deficiency, we encourage Appellant's counsel to review Rule 4-2 in its entirety as it relates to the abstract and addendum, as well as the entire record, to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present, as any subsequent rebriefing order may result in affirmance of the order or judgment due to noncompliance with Rule 4-2. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2011); see also Kirkland v. Sandlin, 2011 Ark. 106 (per curiam).
Rebriefing ordered.
Source: Leagle
