{ "id": 1513717, "name": "Teresa BALLARD, Kenisha Bryant, Cheryl King, and Crystal Luebbers v. Phyllis GARRETT, and Advance America Cash Advance Centers of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Ballard v. Garrett", "decision_date": "2002-05-21", "docket_number": "01-1218", "first_page": "29", "last_page": "32", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "349 Ark. 29" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "75 S.W.3d 688" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "344 Ark. 75", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 210107 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/344/0075-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 Ark. 286", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 683346 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/347/0286-01" ] }, { "cite": "347 Ark. 291", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 683408 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2001, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/347/0291-01" ] }, { "cite": "348 Ark. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 74151 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2002, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/348/0567-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 373, "char_count": 7068, "ocr_confidence": 0.738, "pagerank": { "raw": 7.168668855370785e-08, "percentile": 0.42923487044997605 }, "sha256": "8ff7e0a2328cf56bb9d9b0692c231012d6e49aaa952f98eda240d314d7061a08", "simhash": "1:2bdacb34252e5b39", "word_count": 1126 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:02.317850+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Glaze, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "Teresa BALLARD, Kenisha Bryant, Cheryl King, and Crystal Luebbers v. Phyllis GARRETT, and Advance America Cash Advance Centers of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PER CURIAM.\nThis appeal stems from a class action usury suit filed by appellee Phyllis Garrett against appellee Advance America Cash Advance Centers of Arkansas, Inc., on October 12, 1999.\nOn July 6, 2001, appellants, Teresa Ballard, Kenisha Bryant, Cheryl King, and Crystal Luebbers, who were also members of the class, filed a motion seeking to intervene in the action. On July 16, 2001, a hearing was held on appellants\u2019 motion. On July 18, 2001, the trial court, finding that appellants\u2019 motion to intervene was untimely and that appellants\u2019 interest were adequately represented, denied the motion to intervene.\nIt is from the trial court\u2019s denial of their motion to intervene, that appellants appeal. We took this case under submission on May 16, 2002. Upon reviewing the materials included in appellants\u2019 abstract and addendum, it is apparent that appellants\u2019 filing was deficient in that several relevant pleadings and documents that are essential to an understanding of the issues were not contained in appellants\u2019 abstract or addendum. We are deferring action on this appeal until appellants fully comply with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 4-2. '\nSupreme Court Rule 4-2(8) (b)(3) explains the procedure that we now follow when an appellant has failed to supply this court with a sufficient brief. The rule provides:\nWhether or not the appellee has called attention to deficiencies in the appellant\u2019s abstract or addendum, the court may address the question at any time. If the court finds the abstract or addendum to be deficient such that the court cannot reach the merits of the case, or such as to cause an unreasonable or unjust delay in the disposition of the appeal, the court will notify the appellant that he or she will be afforded an opportunity to cure any deficiencies, and has fifteen days within which to file a substituted abstract, addendum, and brief, at his or her own expense, to conform to Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (7). Mere modifications of the original brief by the appellant, as by interlineation, will not be accepted by the clerk. Upon the filing of such a substituted brief by the appellant, the appellee will be afforded an opportunity to revise or supplement the brief, at the expense of the appellant or the appellant\u2019s counsel, as the court may direct. If after the opportunity to cure the deficiencies, the appellant fails to file a complying abstract, addendum, and brief within the prescribed time, the judgment or decree may be affirmed for noncompliance with the rule.\nId.\nAppellants have failed to comply with Supreme Court Rule 4-2. The rule in relevant part provides:\nFollowing the signature and certificate of service, the appellant\u2019s brief shall contain an addendum which shall include true and legible photocopies of the order, judgment, decree, ruling, letter opinion, or Workers\u2019 Compensation Commission opinion from which the appeal is taken, along with any other relevant pleadings, documents, or exhibits essential to an understanding of the case and the court\u2019s jurisdiction on appeal. In the case of lengthy, pleadings or documents, only relevant excerpts in context need to be included in the addendum. Depending upon the issues on appeal, the addendum may include such materials as the following: a contract, will, lease, or any other document; proffers of evidence; jury instructions or proffered jury instructions; the court\u2019s findings and conclusions of law; orders; administrative law judge\u2019s opinion; discovery documents; requests for admissions; and relevant pleadings or documents essential to an understanding of the court\u2019s jurisdiction on appeal such as the notice of appeal. The addendum shall include an index of its contents and shall also be clear where any item appearing in the addendum can be found in the record. The appellee may prepare a supplemental addendum if material on which the appellee relies is not in the appellant\u2019s addendum. Pursuant to subsection (c) below, the clerk will refuse to accept an appellant\u2019s brief if its addendum does not contain the required order, judgment, decree, ruling, letter opinion, or administrative law judge\u2019s opinion. The appellee\u2019s brief shall only contain an addendum to include an item which the appellant\u2019s addendum fails to include.\nId. (emphasis added).\nIn the case now before us, appellants\u2019 addendum contains only the trial court\u2019s order denying appellants\u2019 request for intervention. The following information, which is essential to an understanding of the case, is missing: (1) appellants\u2019 motion to intervene; (2) appellants\u2019 brief in support of motion to intervene; (3) appellees\u2019 responses to appellants\u2019 motion to intervene; (4) appellees\u2019 brief in support of objection to motion to intervene; and (5) appellants\u2019 notice of appeal and designation of the record.\nAppellee Phyllis Garrett noted in her brief that appellants failed to include a copy of their motion to intervene. However, appellee Garrett did not provide us with a supplemental addendum. The other information which is missing from appellants\u2019 addendum was not mentioned by either appellee.\nReview of appellants\u2019 motion to intervene and appellees\u2019 responses to the motion to intervene is essential to our consideration of this appeal. Specifically, a review of these documents is needed for us to understand the arguments that were raised below and the arguments that the trial court considered when it denied appellants\u2019 motion. Moreover, we note that a review of the notice of appeal filed by appellants is critical in determining whether we have jurisdiction over this matter. Because appellants have failed to comply with Rule 4-2, we are ordering appellants to submit a revised or supplemental abstract and addendum that contains all relevant pleadings and documents that are essential to an understanding of the issues raised in this appeal. Appellants must file a complying abstract, addendum, and brief within fifteen days from the entry of this order. Thereafter, appellees will have five days to respond.\nGlaze, J., not participating.\nWe note that we have considered appeals involving these parties on several occasions. See Luebbers v. Advance America Cash Advance, 348 Ark. 567, 74 S.W.3d 608 (2002), Ballard v. Clark County Circuit Court, 347 Ark. 291, 61 S.W.3d 178, Ballard v. Clark County Circuit Court, 347 Ark. 286, 61 S.W.3d 175 (2001), Advance America Cash Advance Centers Of Arkansas, Inc. v. Garrett, 344 Ark. 75, 40 S.W.3d 239 (2001).", "type": "majority", "author": "PER CURIAM." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Nixon Law Firm, by: David G. Nixon and Paige E. Young; and Logan Thompson Miller Bilbo Thompson Fisher, PC, by: Richard A. Fisher and jimmy W. Bilbo, for appellants.", "Morgan & Turner, by: Phyllis Garrett, for appellee Phyllis Garrett.", "Bowman and Brooke, LLP, by: Robert M. Buell and Charles K. Seyfarth; and Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, by: Claire Shows Hancock, for appellee Advance America." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Teresa BALLARD, Kenisha Bryant, Cheryl King, and Crystal Luebbers v. Phyllis GARRETT, and Advance America Cash Advance Centers of Arkansas\n01-1218\n75 S.W.3d 688\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered May 21, 2002\nThe Nixon Law Firm, by: David G. Nixon and Paige E. Young; and Logan Thompson Miller Bilbo Thompson Fisher, PC, by: Richard A. Fisher and jimmy W. Bilbo, for appellants.\nMorgan & Turner, by: Phyllis Garrett, for appellee Phyllis Garrett.\nBowman and Brooke, LLP, by: Robert M. Buell and Charles K. Seyfarth; and Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, by: Claire Shows Hancock, for appellee Advance America." }, "file_name": "0029-01", "first_page_order": 49, "last_page_order": 52 }