Case Title: Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Memphis, Tennessee v. Terry Priddy

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-04-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
COCA-COLA BOTTLING COMPANY of Memphis,
Tennessee v. Terry PRIDDY

96-657                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered April 7, 1997


Appeal & error -- cases decided without oral argument where 
     scheduling would cause undue delay -- no provision for
     screening cases to determine which cases present issues for
     which oral argument should be granted -- scheduling for this
     argument would not cause undue delay. -- Arkansas Supreme
     Court Rule 5-1(i) provides that if attempts to schedule oral
     argument may result in undue delay, the court may decide that 
     case without oral argument; the court has not developed a
     process for screening cases to determine which cases present
     issues or circumstances for which oral argument should be
     called for or granted; here, the oral arguments could be
     scheduled within the next two months; this scheduling would
     not present undue delay, and appellee's motion for denial of
     oral arguments was denied.


     Motion for Denial of Oral Argument denied.
     Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by:  Donald H. Bacon, for appellant.
     J.R. Nash, for appellee.

     Per Curiam.
     The appellee, seeking to advance the scheduling of this case
for submission, moves that oral argument be waived and states that
the issues to be presented are not complex or new, that the issues
have been briefed thoroughly by the parties, and that it is
unlikely that oral argument can add to the information already
provided to the court.  Appellant responds by stating its belief
that oral arguments will be beneficial to the court.
     Our rule provides that "[i]f it appears that attempts to
schedule oral argument may result in undue delay, the Court may
decide any case without oral argument."  Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 5-1(i). 
The practice of the court has been to schedule oral arguments upon
written request by counsel, and the court has not heretofore
developed a process for screening cases to determine which cases
present issues or circumstances for which oral argument should be
called for or granted.  We will review this matter and consider
whether it is appropriate to change our rules to establish criteria
to determine which cases should be orally argued on appeal.
     In the case before us, it appears that the oral arguments
already noted can be scheduled within the next two months.  We find
that this scheduling will not present undue delay, and we deny
appellee's motion.