Case Title: City of West Memphis and Lindsey Fairley, Nolan Dawson, and Tom Graham, in their Official Capacities as the Crittenden County Board of Election Commissioners v. City of Marion

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1998-03-26T00:00:00Z

Document:
CITY OF WEST MEMPHIS and Lindsey Fairley,
Nolan Dawson, and Tom Graham, In Their
Official Capacities as the Crittenden County
Board of Election Commissioners v. 
CITY OF MARION

97-742                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered March 26, 1998


1.   Municipal corporations -- annexation -- standard of review. -- The
     standard of review for annexation cases is substantial
     evidence. 

2.   Appeal & error -- appellate court's responsibility. -- The appellate
     court's sole responsibility is to decide whether the circuit
     court's findings of fact were clearly erroneous; when the
     appellate court has a firm and definite belief that the trial
     court made a mistake, it will hold the trial court's finding
     as clearly erroneous even if there is evidence to support it.

3.   Appeal & error -- abstracting requirement -- abstract is record for
     purposes of review -- appealing party's burden. -- The abstract is the
     record for purposes of appeal; section 4-2(a)(6) of the
     Arkansas Supreme Court Rules is violated when there are no
     references to the pages of an abstract and only transcript
     citations are supplied to the court; a transcript will not be
     examined to reverse a lower court; the burden is clearly
     placed on the appealing party to provide both a record and an
     abstract sufficient for appellate review; the supreme court
     will not entertain an argument when it cannot be determined
     from the abstract what arguments were made to the lower court.

4.   Appeal & error -- abstracting requirement -- flagrant deficiency may result
     in affirmance. -- Rule 4-2(a)(6) of the Arkansas Supreme Court
     requires that the abstract should contain "pleadings,
     proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in the record
     as are necessary to an understanding of all questions
     presented to the Court for decision"; the purpose of an
     abstract is to give the supreme court an understanding of the
     issues on appeal; the court may affirm for noncompliance with
     the rule when there is a flagrantly deficient abstract; the
     inherent logic of this rule is that there are seven justices
     on the supreme court but only one record.

5.   Appeal & error -- abstracting requirement -- references to transcript
     insufficient. -- Mere references to the transcript scattered in
     the brief are insufficient.

6.   Appeal & error -- abstracting requirement -- review barred by flagrantly
     deficient abstract -- affirmed on direct appeal. -- Appellant failed
     to meet its burden of producing a sufficient abstract where it
     did not abstract any of the arguments made or testimony given
     to the trial court; the flagrantly deficient abstract barred
     review on appeal for failure to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R.
     4-2(a)(6); although appellee supplemented the abstract of the
     record in support of its cross-appeal, this did not cure the
     deficiencies; the supreme court summarily affirmed all three
     issues raised on direct appeal.

7.   Elections -- challenge -- postelection remedies. -- If an appeal
     reaches the supreme court after an election has occurred, the
     only remedy that the court can provide is to set aside the
     election results; once the votes have been cast, the supreme
     court will not set aside the election unless the procedural
     errors rendered the result doubtful or prevented the
     electorate from casting free and intelligent votes.

8.   Mandamus -- when properly ordered. -- Mandamus is properly ordered
     when there is an established right and the law does not have
     a specific remedy with which to enforce that right. 

9.   Mandamus -- appellee had already received relief requested -- affirmed on
     cross-appeal. -- Although the supreme court has frequently
     recognized the writ of mandamus as a remedy to remove
     ineligible candidates on ballot titles, it construed the issue
     raised on cross-appeal as an alternative argument to reversal
     on direct appeal and concluded that setting the election aside
     would not benefit appellee/cross-appellant, which had already
     received the relief it was requesting and did not allege that
     the failure to issue the writ made the result of the election
     doubtful or prevented the voters from free and intelligent
     votes; the supreme court affirmed the circuit court's judgment
     in its entirety.


     Appeal from Crittenden Circuit Court; Ralph Wilson, Jr.,
Judge; affirmed on direct appeal and cross-appeal.
     David C. Peeples, for appellant.
     James C. Hale, III; and Timothy Davis Fox, for appellee/cross-
appellant.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Appellant City of West Memphis raises three issues in this
appeal arising out of the Crittenden County Circuit Court against
Appellee City of Marion.  Our jurisdiction of this appeal is
pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(6), as it concerns an election
and election procedures involving both a voluntary annexation as
set forth in Ark. Code Ann.  14-40-601--606 (1987), and an
involuntary annexation pursuant to Ark. Code Ann.  14-40-301--304
(1987).  Marion raises one issue on cross-appeal.  Due to a
flagrantly deficient abstract, we summarily affirm the direct
appeal.  We further affirm the cross-appeal. 
     The facts culminating in this appeal began on December 23,
1996, when West Memphis passed Ordinance No. 1760, providing for a
special election on February 24, 1997.  The purpose of the election
was to vote for annexation of 5,700 acres to West Memphis. On
December 30, 1996, seven property owners of 2,340 acres within the
same 5,700 acres, petitioned the Crittenden County Court for
voluntary annexation to Marion.  The Crittenden County Court
granted the petition for annexation to Marion in an order entered
on February 4, 1997.  On February 11, 1997, Marion passed Ordinance
No. 328, accepting the 2,340 acres.  Ordinance No. 328 contained an
emergency clause which rendered the Marion annexation effective
immediately. 
     On February 18, 1997, Marion filed a complaint in the
Crittenden County Circuit Court, seeking a writ of mandamus against
West Memphis and the Crittenden County Board of Election
Commissioners to remove the 2,340 acres from the legal description
on the special-election ballot.  The complaint further sought a
declaratory judgment and an injunction to restrain the February 24,
1997 special election.  The circuit court conducted a hearing on
February 20, 1997, and ultimately denied the writ of mandamus and
injunction.  The circuit court, however, issued a declaratory
judgment, in an order entered on February 20, 1997, and filed on
March 14, 1997.  Specifically, the circuit court found that the
2,340 acres belonged to Marion, as Ordinance No. 328 became
effective on the date it was passed.  The circuit court also ruled
that the order could only be challenged by an interested party
filing a complaint in the circuit court to prevent the annexation. 
The circuit court determined that the ballots for the February 24,
1997 special election had been printed, and seven voters had
already voted.  The circuit court further determined that should
the election result in a favorable vote for annexation of the 5,700
acres, the 2,340 acres annexed to Marion would not become part of
West Memphis.  The trial court relied on section 14-40-301, which
provides that "[t]he provisions of this subchapter shall not be
construed to give any municipality the authority to annex any
portion of another city or incorporated town."  West Memphis then
filed notice of this appeal on April 9, 1997.  Marion filed notice
of cross-appeal on April 21, 1997.
     The standard of review for annexation cases is substantial
evidence.  Lewis v. City of Bryant, 291 Ark. 566, 726 S.W.2d 672
(1987).  Our sole responsibility  is to decide whether the circuit
court's findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Id. (citing Holmes
v. City of Little Rock, 285 Ark. 296,