Case Name: William H. WADE v. FRANKLIN-STRICKLIN LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1979-01-15
Citations: 264 Ark. 841
Docket Number: 78-173
Parties: William H. WADE v. FRANKLIN-STRICKLIN LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
Judges: Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Holt, JJ.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 264
Pages: 841–842

Head Matter:
William H. WADE v. FRANKLIN-STRICKLIN LAND SURVEYORS, INC.
78-173
575 S.W. 2d 672
Opinion delivered January 15, 1979
(Division II)
[Rehearing denied February 12, 1979.]
Appellant, pro se.
Jim Stallcup, for appellees.

Opinion:
Darrell Hickman, Justice.
This appeal is affirmed under Rule 9(e)(2) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Arkansas because appellant failed to abstract any of the record in violation of Rule 9(d).
Rule 9 requires the abstract of the record to be a conden sation of the pleadings, proceedings, facts and documents in the record. The appellant totally failed to comply with the rule. In numerous recent cases we have found it necessary to affirm for noncompliance with Rule 9(d): Dyke Industries v. Johnson Const. Co., et al, 261 Ark. 790, 551 S.W. 2d 217 (1977); Manes v. M.O.V.E., Inc., et al, 261 Ark. 793, 552 S.W. 2d 211 (1977) ; Dairyland Insurance Co. v. Carter, 261 Ark. 795, 551 S.W. 2d 211 (1977); Bank of Ozark v. Isaacs, 263 Ark. 113, 563 S.W. 2d 707 (1978); Weston v. Ponder, 263 Ark. 370, 565 S.W. 2d 31 (1978); Merritt v. Merritt, 263 Ark. 432, 565 S.W. 2d 603 (1978); Smith v. Smith, 263 Ark. 578, 567 S.W. 2d 88 (1978).
Affirmed.
We agree.
Harris, C.J., and Fogleman and Holt, JJ.