Court Opinion

ID: 9659830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:55:46.008276+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:11.982502
License: Public Domain

DONALD L. CORBIN, Justice, concurring. While I agree that the present case must be sent back for rebriefing, I must write separately to highlight the fact that, despite the dissent’s assertions to the contrary, this court is interpreting and enforcing our rules regarding briefs in a consistent and fair manner. In a case where summary judgment was granted, the motion for summary judgment, one of the essential items for our review, is missing from the addendum. When this court adopted the current version of Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) requiring the appellant to include an addendum, we did so to ensure that this court had everything before it that was relevant and essential for us to decide an appeal. The dissent now narrowly focuses on the term “pleading” to support its contention that we are becoming “far too technical” in what we deem is essential to properly perform our appellate duties. Characterizing a document a “pleading” is irrelevant. Rule 4-2(a)(8) plainly states 17that the addendum shall include relevant “pleadings, documents, or exhibits essential to an understanding of the case and the Court’s jurisdiction on appeal.” While I do not agree with the dissent’s exclusion of motions from the definition of pleadings, it does not matter. If a motion, response, or any other document is relevant to our understanding of the case, it must be included in the addendum, regardless of how it is characterized. The dissent’s analysis of what is essential for this court’s review is faulty for two reasons. First, the dissent would have this court going to the record to determine whether something is necessary to an appeal. It is axiomatic that there is only one record, and it is impossible for seven judges to examine it. See, e.g., Hooker v. Farm Plan Corp., 331 Ark. 418, 962 S.W.2d 353 (1998). Second, in all of my years as an appellate court judge, I have never thought it sufficient to have the “essence” of what was before the trial court. In order to make an informed decision about an appeal, I need the benefit of the exact things the trial court relied on in making its decision. That is what Rule 4-2(a)(8) intended, and that is what this court has consistently required. I do not believe for one second that the attorneys in this state want us to rely on an opposing party’s description, allusion to, or summary of a motion, response, or document filed with the circuit court.1 Both sides to an appeal expect us to fully understand the case | «before making our decision, and we can only do this when the parties present us with all the items necessary to bring about that understanding. While the litigants may not be pleased when a case is slightly delayed, I believe that justice delayed is far better than justice in “essence.” GUNTER and DANIELSON, JJ., join in this concurrence.  . The dissent's current position that we can rely on one side's summary of a case is wholly contrary to the position taken in Latta v. State, 350 Ark. 488, 88 S.W.3d 833 (2002). There, the same dissenting justice opposed the majority's purported reliance on the State's brief to reverse a circuit court’s decision, stating that "[t]he result of all this is that the principle of decision-making based on the adversary system has gone by the boards.” This begs the question: Is it an adversary system if we rely on a party's summary of the opposing party's arguments, responses, and replies?