From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Van Bibber v. Laster

Supreme Court of Arkansas
May 19, 1986
709 S.W.2d 90 (Ark. 1986)

Opinion

No. 85-266.

Opinion delivered May 19, 1986

1. APPEAL ERROR — FAILURE OF APPELLANTS TO ABSTRACT RECORD — AFFIRMANCE REQUIRED. — Where the appellants failed to abstract any of the testimony or the pleadings which are essential for the court to review their claim, the case must be affirmed. [Rule 9, Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.] 2. APPEAL ERROR — APPELLANTS' DUTY TO ABSTRACT RECORD — IMMATERIAL THAT APPELLANTS ARE PRO SE. — With regard to the appellants' duty to abstract the record, the fact that appellants are pro se is immaterial.

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Second Division; John B. Plegge, Special Judge; affirmed.

Thomas H. Van Bibber, Sr., for appellant.

Matthews Sanders, for appellee.


On March 15, 1984, at approximately 9 p.m., appellant, Thomas H. Van Bibber, was hit by appellee's car while he was crossing the street. Dr. Van Bibber and his wife sued the appellee for injuries he suffered as a result of the accident. A jury verdict in favor of the appellee was returned, and the appellants appeal pro se.

[1, 2] We must affirm this case because the appellants have failed to abstract any of the testimony or the pleadings which are essential for us to review their case. See Rule 9, Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. The fact the appellants are pro se is immaterial. Bryant v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 302, 705 S.W.2d 9 (1986).

Affirmed.

PURTLE, J., not participating.


Summaries of

Van Bibber v. Laster

Supreme Court of Arkansas
May 19, 1986
709 S.W.2d 90 (Ark. 1986)
Case details for

Van Bibber v. Laster

Case Details

Full title:Thomas H. VAN BIBBER v. Sharon Gail LASTER

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas

Date published: May 19, 1986

Citations

709 S.W.2d 90 (Ark. 1986)
709 S.W.2d 90

Citing Cases

Hooker v. Deere Credit Servs., Inc.

Moreover, appellant's brief fails to comply with Rule 4-2, Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of…

Garland v. Windsor Door

The fact that the notice of appeal is pro se is immaterial, as pro se litigants are held to the same…