Title: Qualls v. Ferritor

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Harold D. QUALLS v. Daniel FERRITOR,
Chancellor, and University of Arkansas,
Fayetteville

97-223                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 30, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- abstracting -- what must be abstracted. --
     The supreme court's rules require abstracting of such material
     parts of the 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. 

2.   Appeal & error -- argument on appeal premised on document not
     abstracted -- abstracted documents not considered at trial
     could not be considered on appeal. --   Appellant's entire
     argument on appeal was premised on a document dated March 23,
     1987, which he labeled a "trade agreement, or waiver";
     however, that agreement appeared nowhere in the abstract and
     apparently was not presented to the trial court; no testimony
     was abstracted concerning the March 23 document, even though
     appellant mentioned the document repeatedly in his statement
     of the case and argument in his brief; appellant's briefing
     problem was exacerbated by his listing and placement of a
     number of letters, certificates, and other papers in his
     brief, which were not in the transcript and were never
     considered by the trial court; as a consequence, the supreme
     court could not consider them on appeal. 
3.   Appeal & error -- appellant's burden to demonstrate reversible
     error -- failure to cite authority or make convincing argument
     results in affirmance. -- The appellant has the burden to
     demonstrate any reversible error and present a record
     evidencing such error; when the appellant does not cite
     authority or make a convincing argument, and where it is not
     apparent without further research that the point is well
     taken, the supreme court will affirm.

4.   Appeal & error -- no legal authority for argument -- abstract
     flagrantly deficient -- trial court's ruling affirmed. --
     Where appellant cited no legal authority to support his
     argument, offered five pages of argument that was unclear, and
     provided an abstract that was flagrantly deficient, the
     supreme court affirmed the trial court's ruling; pro se
     litigants are held to the same requirement as attorneys. 


     Appeal from Washington Circuit Court; Kim M. Smith, Judge;
affirmed.
     Appellant, pro se.
     T. Scott Varady, Associate Gen. Counsel and Jeffrey A. Bell,
Associate Gen. Counsel, for appellees.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     Appellant Harold D. Qualls filed suit, pro se, in Washington
County Circuit Court, naming as defendants the State of Arkansas,
the University of Arkansas at Fayetteville, and the University's
Chancellor, Daniel Ferritor.  Qualls alleged that, in 1986, he was
expelled from the University, but that, under an agreement dated
March 23, 1987, the University agreed to readmit him, allow him to
attend graduate school, and permit him to obtain a doctorate degree
in education if he would surrender his Arkansas teacher
certificate.  Qualls further alleged he was readmitted and
subsequently obtained his bachelor of special education and master
of education degrees, but after completing ten hours towards his
doctorate degree, was advised by the University that he did not
qualify for a doctorate degree because he had no teacher
certificate.  Qualls asserted the defendants' action caused him
compensable damages in the total amount of $1,000,000, and punitive
damages of $9,000,000.
     The appellees responded to Qualls's complaint by moving to
dismiss on the grounds that Qualls had failed to state a claim upon
which relief could be granted, and that such suit against the
University and Chancellor Ferritor was barred under the sovereign
immunity clause (Ark. Const. art. V,  20) and the statutory
immunity provision set out in Ark. Code Ann.  19-10-305(a) (Repl.
1994).  The trial court granted appellees' motion, and Qualls
brings this appeal, arguing the trial court erred in dismissing his
suit.
     We are unable to address Qualls's argument because his
abstract is flagrantly deficient.  See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b). 
This court's rules require abstracting of such material parts of
the 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.  Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6). 
     Qualls's entire argument on appeal is premised on a document
dated March 23, 1987, which he labels a "trade agreement, or
waiver."  However, that agreement appears nowhere in the abstract,
and apparently was not presented to the trial court.  Also, no
testimony is abstracted concerning the March 23 document, even
though Qualls mentions the document repeatedly in his statement of
the case and argument in his brief.  Qualls's briefing problem is
exacerbated by his listing and placement of a number of letters,
certificates, and other papers in his brief, which are not in the
transcript and were never considered by the trial court.  As a
consequence, we cannot consider them on appeal.  See Rochelle v.
Piles, 244 Ark. 606, 427 S.W.2d 10 (1968).
     Finally, we note that Qualls, as appellant, has the burden to
demonstrate any reversible error and present a record evidencing
such error.  See Rad-Razorback Ltd. Partnership v. B.G. Coney Co.,
289 Ark. 550,