Court Opinion

ID: 9675675
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:01:46.314528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:37.013784
License: Public Domain

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice, dissenting. I dissent from the majority’s holding that a notice of appeal was filed in this case. Appellants’ purported notice of appeal did not comply with the requirement of Rule 3 (e), Rules of Appellate Procedure, Ark. Stat. Ann., Vol. 3A (Repl. 1979) which provides: (e) Content of Notice of Appeal or Cross-Appeal. A notice of appeal or cross-appeal shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal; shall designate the judgment, decree, order or part thereof appealed from and shall designate the contents of the record on appeal. The notice shall also contain a statement that the transcript or specific portions thereof, have been ordered by the appellant. (Emphasis mine) In the reporter’s notes to Rule 3 it is stated that ordering the transcript from the court reporter at the time of filing the notice of appeal “is intended to expedite appeals.” The effect of the majority ruling today is to abrogate the plain language of the rule and its stated purpose and intent. It is common practice to delay appellate procedure by not ordering the transcript from the court reporter until just before the time required for requesting an extention. Failure to order the transcript at the time of filing a notice of appeal as mandated by Rule 3 leaves the court reporter and the appellee in suspense as to whether or not an appeal will actually be taken. When the order for the transcript belatedly arrives, the court reporter is then pressed to acknowledge a need for an extension of time in which to prepare the transcript and usually then has a little over three months in which to prepare the transcript as opposed to six months. The majority have refurbished an old vehicle for delay in the administration of justice which our new Rules of Civil Procedure had closed.