Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): these decisions appear to be inconsistent with this court’s opinion in Vimy Ridge Municipal Water Improvement District No. 139 of Little Rock v. Ryles, 373 Ark. 366, 284 S.W.3d 70 (2008). By certifying this case to us, the court of appeals is seeking clarification of the rule and is asking us to resolve the conflict in the decisions of our appellate courts. In Jasper v. Johnny’s Pizza, 305 Ark. 318, 807 S.W.2d 664 (1991), the notice of appeal failed to designate the judgment or order being appealed as required by Rule 3(e). We held that this was not a fatal defect that required the dismissal of the appeal. Instead, this court held that it is the timing of a notice of appeal that is of jurisdictional significance. See also Davis v. Ralston Purina Co., 248 Ark. 14, 449 S.W.2d 709 (1970) (<HOLDING>). In subsequent decisions, we have held that an 
 Holding statements: (A) holding time for filing notice of appeal under rule 8002 is jurisdictional (B) holding that the filing of an opening brief within the time period for filing a notice of appeal could constitute notice of appeal (C) holding that timeliness of filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional issue (D) holding that the filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional but irregularities in the other procedural steps found in rule 3e are merely grounds for such action as this court deems appropriate (E) holding same as to the filing of a notice of an interlocutory appeal
Output (English): holding that timeliness of filing of notice of appeal is a jurisdictional issue