Case Name: Francis J. HART and Other Benton County Taxpayers Similarly Situated v. BENTON COUNTY; Bruce Rutherford, County Judge of Benton County, Arkansas; Quorum Court Members, Robert "Dodie" Evans, William R. Fortune, Leon E. Lynch, Cary Anderson, Tim Summers, Mary Baggett, Earl Femmer, Margaret "Marge" Wolf, Sheryll A. Harbaugh, Clyde C. Cummings, Charles Bilby, Jeff Moser, Anne Miners; Benton County Treasurer; Gloria Spring-Peterson; and State of Arkansas
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1997-03-10
Citations: 327 Ark. 541
Docket Number: 96-1255
Parties: Francis J. HART and Other Benton County Taxpayers Similarly Situated v. BENTON COUNTY; Bruce Rutherford, County Judge of Benton County, Arkansas; Quorum Court Members, Robert “Dodie” Evans, William R. Fortune, Leon E. Lynch, Cary Anderson, Tim Summers, Mary Baggett, Earl Femmer, Margaret “Marge” Wolf, Sheryll A. Harbaugh, Clyde C. Cummings, Charles Bilby, Jeff Moser, Anne Miners; Benton County Treasurer; Gloria Spring-Peterson; and State of Arkansas
Judges: 
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 327
Pages: 541–541

Head Matter:
Francis J. HART and Other Benton County Taxpayers Similarly Situated v. BENTON COUNTY; Bruce Rutherford, County Judge of Benton County, Arkansas; Quorum Court Members, Robert “Dodie” Evans, William R. Fortune, Leon E. Lynch, Cary Anderson, Tim Summers, Mary Baggett, Earl Femmer, Margaret “Marge” Wolf, Sheryll A. Harbaugh, Clyde C. Cummings, Charles Bilby, Jeff Moser, Anne Miners; Benton County Treasurer; Gloria Spring-Peterson; and State of Arkansas
96-1255
938 S.W.2d 856
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered March 10, 1997
Oscar Stilley, for appellant.
No response.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The motion for disqualification or recusal of Supreme Court justices filed by appellants, Francis J. Hart, and other Benton County Taxpayers similiary situated, is denied. Appellants also request a hearing "[i]f the Justices choose not to recuse without a hearing." We find appellants' request for a hearing after denial of the motion to be inconsistent. The purpose of a hearing is to consider the merits of a motion before making a decision. Therefore, appellants' request for a hearing "if the Justices choose not to recuse" is denied on grounds of mootness.