Title: City of Little Rock v. Pulaski County Circuit Court

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

CITY OF LITTLE ROCK v. PULASKI COUNTY 
CIRCUIT COURT

97-480                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered December 11, 1997


1.   Prohibition, writ of -- when appropriate -- review confined to pleadings. -
     - A writ of prohibition is appropriate only when the lower
     court is wholly without jurisdiction; in deciding whether the
     writ will lie, the supreme court confines its review to the
     pleadings; here the record did not contain the pleadings
     necessary to determine whether the circuit court had
     jurisdiction.

2.   Prohibition, writ of -- petitioner's burden to produce abstract and record
     establishing entitlement to. -- A petitioner bears the burden of
     producing a fair and accurate record and abstract that
     establish an entitlement to a writ; an ambiguous record, such
     as the one presented in this case, cannot satisfy the
     petitioner's burden.

3.   Prohibition, writ of -- record and abstract deemed flagrantly deficient --
     petition denied. -- The supreme court, concluding that the record
     and abstract provided by the petitioner did not comply with
     Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2, deemed them flagrantly deficient and
     denied the petition for writ of prohibition.


     Petition for Writ of Prohibition to Pulaski Circuit Court;
Marion Humphrey, Judge; denied.
     Thomas M. Carpenter, Little Rock City Att'y, and Marshall L.
Nash, Asst. City Att'y, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kelly K. Hill, Deputy Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     This petition for a writ of prohibition was brought by the
City of Little Rock to prohibit the Pulaski County Circuit Court
from considering an appeal from the Little Rock Municipal Court and
from enforcing an order with respect to that appeal, because the
notice of appeal was untimely.  From the abstract and record
provided to us by the City, we are unable to tell when the appeal
was perfected.  We deny the petition because the abstract is
flagrantly deficient and the record is incomplete.
     The judgment of the municipal court, the docket entries
relating thereto, and the notice of appeal from that order are not
reflected in the abstract presented to us for review.  We will not
belabor the insufficiency of the materials, but note that while 
some proceedings in the municipal court are described in the
abstract, those proceedings are not reflected in the record before
this court.  In short, we have no clear record of exactly what took
place and when.  
     The standard for a writ of prohibition is well settled.  Such
a writ is appropriate only when the lower court is wholly without
jurisdiction.  Nucor Holding Corp. v. Rinkines, 326 Ark. 217, 931 S.W.2d 426 (1996).  In deciding whether the writ will lie, we
confine our review to the pleadings.  Id.  Here, the record does
not contain the necessary pleadings to determine whether the
circuit court had jurisdiction.  
     A petitioner bears the burden of producing a fair and accurate
record and abstract that establish an entitlement to a writ.   See
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2 & 6-1; Davis v. State, 319 Ark. 171, 889 S.W.2d 769 (1994); State v. Pulaski County Circuit-Chancery Court,
316 Ark. 473,