Hobson v. Entergy Ark. Inc.
2013 Ark. App. 447
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- George and Montie Hobson sued Entergy Arkansas, Inc., claiming breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud; a Pulaski County jury later awarded the Hobsons $21,935.98 on the contract and estoppel claims.
- Before trial, the circuit court granted summary judgment dismissing the Hobsons’ claims for actual and constructive fraud and limited the types of damages recoverable on the contract and estoppel claims.
- The Hobsons appealed the summary-judgment rulings to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals found deficiencies in the Hobsons’ appellate brief and record: transcripts of two summary-judgment hearing(s) were omitted from the appellant’s abstract.
- The court ordered rebriefing: the Hobsons must file a substituted brief within 15 days that includes the hearing transcripts in the abstract, the jury verdict form in the addendum, and remove full deposition transcripts from the addendum (abstract material parts instead).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appellate abstract must include transcripts of the circuit‑court summary‑judgment hearings | Hobsons implicitly relied on the existing abstract as sufficient | Entergy relied on the record as filed; argued procedures were followed | Court held hearing transcripts are material and must be abstracted; rebriefing ordered |
| Whether deposition transcripts should be placed in the addendum or abstracted | Hobsons included deposition transcripts in the addendum | Entergy maintained standard briefing rules control placement | Court held depositions that are exhibits must be abstracted (material parts) and removed from addendum; addendum should reference abstract pages |
| Whether the jury’s verdict form must be included in the addendum | Hobsons omitted the verdict form from the addendum | Entergy noted absence of verdict form impeded review | Court ordered the verdict form be included in the addendum |
| Consequences for noncompliance with briefing rules | Hobsons sought appellate review despite omissions | Entergy argued rules govern and consequences may follow | Court warned failure to comply may result in affirmance and ordered corrected brief within 15 days |
Key Cases Cited
- Vimy Ridge Mun. Water Improvement Dist. v. Ryles, 369 Ark. 217 (citation noting that transcripts of motion hearings are material when ruling on the motion is at issue)
- Moon v. Holloway, 353 Ark. 520 (per curiam) (same principle on materiality of hearing transcripts)
- Evins v. Carvin, 2012 Ark. App. 622 (discussing need to abstract stenographic material essential to appellate review)
- Skalla v. Canepari, 2013 Ark. 249 (per curiam) (clarifying that deposition transcripts used as exhibits must be abstracted, not included in addendum)