Title: Hooker v. Farm Plan Corp.

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

David HOOKER v. FARM PLAN CORPORATION

97-605                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered February 12, 1998


1.   Appeal & error -- review of case -- limited to record as
     abstracted. -- The supreme court's review of a case on appeal
     is limited to the record as abstracted in the briefs; there
     are seven judges on the court, and it is impossible for each
     of them to examine the one record. 

2.   Appeal & error -- appellant's burden to produce proper
     abstract -- judgment affirmed when abstract flagrantly
     deficient. -- The appellant carries the burden of producing an
     abstract that is an impartial condensation, without comment or
     emphasis, of material parts of the pleadings, proceedings,
     facts, documents, and other matters in the record as are
     necessary to an understanding of all questions presented on
     appeal; when the abstract is flagrantly deficient, the
     judgment or decree of the trial court will be affirmed.

3.   Appeal & error -- abstract deficient. -- Where appellant
     failed to sufficiently abstract the pleadings, proceedings,
     agreements, facts, and orders in issue, the supreme court had
     neither an understanding of the issues nor the ability to
     court determine whether the issues were preserved for appeal;
     a notation that merely refers to the location of the document
     in the record is not sufficient. 
4.   Appeal & error -- statement of case deficient -- case affirmed
     without reaching merits. -- Where not only the abstract but
     also the statement of the case was deficient, the supreme
     court affirmed the trial court's order without reaching the
     merits of the case; the statement of the case must be concise
     and devoid of argument in order to give the court an impartial
     and factual summary of the nature of the case and the action
     taken by the trial court; here, appellant's statement failed
     to give necessary information about a credit agreement and
     contained both argument and citations to authority; pro se
     appellants are held to the same standard as attorneys.  


     Appeal from St. Francis Circuit Court; L.T. Simes, II, Judge;
affirmed.
     Appellant, pro se.
     Walker & Black, by:  Kendell R. Black, for appellee.


     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     Appellant David Hooker appeals the trial court's grant of
summary judgment in favor of appellee Farm Plan Corporation (FPC). 
Acting pro se, he raises ten points for reversal.  Because Hooker
submitted a flagrantly deficient abstract, and his brief contained
numerous other deficiencies, we affirm the trial court's order
under Ark. S. Ct. Rule 4-2(a), (b). 
     After a careful reading of appellant's brief, we are required
to affirm the trial court's ruling without reaching the merits of
the case for the reasons listed.  Our review of a case on appeal is
limited to the record as abstracted in the briefs.  See Porter v.
Porter, 329 Ark. 42, 945 S.W.2d 376 (1997); Kearney v. Comm. on
Professional Conduct, 320 Ark. 581,