{
  "id": 1513770,
  "name": "George L. MALLORY, III v. HARTSFIELD, ALMAND & GRISHAM, LLP, and Larry J. Hartsfield",
  "name_abbreviation": "Mallory v. Hartsfield, Almand & Grisham, LLP",
  "decision_date": "2002-06-27",
  "docket_number": "01-1407",
  "first_page": "542",
  "last_page": "545",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "349 Ark. 542"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "79 S.W.3d 359"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 299,
    "char_count": 5624,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.737,
    "sha256": "2b24e351c6674a629fa496c7fe862313158d279938e9194e089a676772e363f6",
    "simhash": "1:e7b05b36152a4f19",
    "word_count": 900
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:52:02.317850+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "George L. MALLORY, III v. HARTSFIELD, ALMAND & GRISHAM, LLP, and Larry J. Hartsfield"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Per Curiam.\nAppellant George L. Mallory,- III,appeals of the appellees and from a motion, which was deemed denied, made by the appellant, requesting the trial judge to recuse upon reconsideration of the granting of summary judgment.\nWe took this case under submission on June 27, 2002. For one point on appeal, appellant asserts that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the appellees. Upon reviewing the materials for this point on appeal included in appellant\u2019s abstract\" and addendum, it is apparent that his filing was deficient in that several relevant pleadings and documents essential to the understanding of the issues were not contained in appellant\u2019s abstract or addendum. We are deferring action on this appeal until appellant fully complies with the provisions of Supreme Court Rule 4-2.\nSupreme Court Rule 4-2(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 \u00a1filing 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.\nAppellant has 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.\nSupreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) (emphasis added).\nIn the case now before us, appellant\u2019s portion of the abstract and addendum addressing the motion for summary judgment contains only the motion, response, and order granting same. The following information, among other items, which is essential to an understanding of this issue in this case, is missing: (1) appellees\u2019 brief in support of the motion for summary judgment; (2) appellees\u2019 supplemental brief in support of the motion for summary judgment and any attachment^) thereto; (3) appellant\u2019s brief in support of his response to appellees\u2019 motion for summary judgment; (4) appellant\u2019s notice of appeal and designation of the record; (5) appellant\u2019s amended notice of appeal and designation of record.\nReview of the above-mentioned items 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 granted appellees\u2019 motion for summary judgment. Because appellant has failed to comply with Rule 4-2, we are ordering him to submit a revised or supplemental abstract and addendum that contain all relevant pleadings and documents that are essential to an understanding of the issues raised in this appeal. Appellant 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.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Per Curiam."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Stanley Rauls, for appeEant.",
      "Michael W. Mitchell, for appeEees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George L. MALLORY, III v. HARTSFIELD, ALMAND & GRISHAM, LLP, and Larry J. Hartsfield\n01-1407\n79 S.W.3d 359\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 27, 2002\nStanley Rauls, for appeEant.\nMichael W. Mitchell, for appeEees."
  },
  "file_name": "0542-01",
  "first_page_order": 566,
  "last_page_order": 569
}