*1 hearing. the in camera The in camera
hearing specifically held so that testify protected setting
victim can public
avoid humiliation disclosure of prior
unrelated and irrelevant evidence of conduct, case, prior
sexual sexual Bond, supra.
abuse. See Under the facts
of this the circuit court erred
concluding that S.O. need not testify at the hearing.
in camera for the rea- above, Joyner
sons prej- noted suffered no Therefore,
udice. I concur in the decision
to affirm the circuit court.
DANIELSON, J., joins.
Justin L J & d/b/a
Construction, Appellant, COTTER, Arkansas; City
CITY OF
Gassville, Arkansas; Garver, Inc.;
Grubbs, Hoskyn, Wyatt, Barton &
Inc., Appellees.
No. 08-811.
Supreme Court of Arkansas.
April
PER CURIAM.
| TAppellant
Bryan,
Justin
doing business
Construction,
as J & L
appeals from the
circuit
granting Appellee
court’s orders
Grubbs, Hoskyn,
Wyatt,
Barton &
Inc.’s
dismiss;
Garver,
Appellee
motion to
Inc.’s
partial
judgment;
*2
by
City
filing
of such a substituted brief
the
City of Cotter and
Aрpellees
will be
appellant,
appellee
sum-
the
afforded
joint
partial
Gassville’s
opportunity
supplement
an
to revise or
Bryan has sub-
mary judgment. Because
brief, at
expense
appellant
the
the
the
proper
a brief without
mitted
counsel,
appellant’s
or the
as the Court
Supreme
of Arkansas
Court
in violation
4-2(a)(8) (2008),
rebriefing.
may
оpportunity
direct.
If after the
we order
Rule
deficiencies,
appellant
cure
the
4-2(a)(8)
provides,
pertinent
abstract,
complying
Addendum
file a
part:
time,
prescribed
and brief within the
signature and certificate
Following the
or decree
be affirmed for
service,
appellant’s brief shall con-
noncompliance with the Rule.
which shall include
tain an Addendum
4-2(b)(3).
Sup.Ct.
R.
of the or-
legible photocopies
true and
decree,
der,
ruling,
letter
Here, Bryan’s brief is deficient due
Compensation
or Workers’
opinion,
fact that his addendum lacks rele
to the
from which the
Commission
pleadings
vant
essential
an understand
taken,
any
peal
along
ing
appeal,
challenges
of the case. On
he
documents, or ex-
circuit court’s orders of dismissal in
1^relevant
understanding of
essential to an
hibits
Appellees.
favor
all four
his
jurisdiction
and the Court’s
the case
any of the mo
addendum fails to include
dismissal,
leading
tions
to the orders of
as
well as the
thereto
2(a)(8).
Sup.Ct.
procedure
R.
The
support
Sepa
thereof.
briefs
when an
has sub-
to be followed
Grubbs, Hoskyn, Barton &
Appelleе
rate
or adden-
mitted an insufficient abstract
supplemental
Inc.
Wyatt,
has submitted
Supreme
in Arkansas
dum is set forth
addendum, which
its own motion
includes
2(b)(3):
Court Rule 4—
and its
to dismiss and brief
has called
or not the
Whether
Bryan’s response to the motion.
reply to
appel-
in the
attention to deficiencies
response |ais not included. The
Addendum, the
lant’s abstract or
Court
addendum аlso includes Gar-
supplemental
any
at
time.
may address the
ver,
partial summary
Inc.’s motion
or Ad-
If the Court finds the abstract
as
support,
as well
judgment and brief
such that
dendum to be deficient
Garver,
response to
reply Bryan’s
Inc.’s
merits of the
cannot reach the
Court
Again, Bryan’s response
the motion.
such as to cause
unreason-
not included.
supplemental response are
delay
disposition
unjust
able or
not in
addendum does
supplemental
notify the
the Court will
pleadings leading to the
any
clude
appellant that he or she will be afforded
granted to the cities.
deficiencies,
any
cure
opportunity
consistently
ordered
days within which to file
This court
and has fifteen
Addendum,
summary judgments
abstract,
briefing
appeals
a substituted
to include the
where the addendum fails
expense,
at
or her own
his
summary judgment,
oppos-
conform to Rule
Mere
motion, the
response to the
original
ing party’s
brief
modifications
interlineation,
response,
moving party’s
will not
appellant,
have been
Upon
support.1
accepted by the Clerk.
pleadings
therefore
sponses are nоt
and are
and re-
1. The dissent maintains
several
ing
preservation
with this situation
times
to be the sole or essen
presented
Brock
4-2(a)(8).
in recent months.
tial
behind Rule
purpose
This
McCastlain,
Townsell, supra; Neely v.
su
impossible
court has observed that it is
Newspa
v. Russellville
pra; Whiteside
us
to make
informed decision
*3
Inc., supra;
Stoops,
Preston v.
su
pers,
appeal
in
of
merits of
the absence
pra. We have
required rebriefing in each
and
trial
pleadings
motions on which the
Moreover, we have reached the
instance.2
County
v.
decision. White
court based
appeals challenging
in
same result
Judsonia, Kensett,
Pangburn,
Cities
&
of
See,
e.g.,
grant
of a motion to dismiss.
604,
at
(citing
368 Ark.
I dо for one second that the not believe attorneys rely in this state want us Let me hasten add that I have been a to, opposing party’s description, allusion part sending back these cases | arebriefing, response, of a or doc- my so it is not intention to Nevertheless, ument with the circuit court.1 Both filed disparage the court. *5 appeal expеct fully sides us to under- to highlights case the fact that we have be- | making stand case our deci- the come in applying too strict our rules. «before sion, only we can this do when the The and the essence problem, core parties us with all the items present neces- my dispute with members of other sary bring about that understanding. court, particular response is whethеr a not be litigants may pleased While the Secondly, to a motion is “a I pleading.” slightly delayed, when a is I believe a raise the of whether delayed justice jus- that is far better than needs in to be included in tice “essence.” when in the issues raised that absent re- sponse can be determined from other mo- DANIELSON, JJ., join GUNTER and tions and the the abstract in this concurrence. hearing, or the order the court. BROWN, Justice, In the ROBERT L. instant the absent is a response summary judg- to motion for dissenting. ment. disturbing write to underscore a trend per this court and that is number of The rule relied on in curiam sending rebriefing. provides cases for our shall we back that addendum include dramatically copies order, decree, That has number increased “of the years ruling, along the last two and is on track in ... letter documents, rebriefings exceed number of or- other relevant or sloppy prepara- dered in No understanding doubt exhibits essential to an ” by tion for has appellants Sup.Ct. counsel caused the case .... Ark. R. added). fear, most of these But (emphasis returns. based That rule is in- position princi 1. The dissent's current that we can result of all "[t]he this is that rely summary wholly on one side's a case is ple decision-making adversary based on State, contrary taken Latta v. system begs gone This boards.” (2002). There, 350 Ark. question: adversary rely system Is it if we dissenting justice opposed the same the ma party's summary opposing party's on a jority's purported reliance on the State's brief responses, arguments, replies? decision, stating a reverse circuit court’s rebriefing to a himself or herself from a A tect to these facts. apposite not a order. for motion 7(a); R. P. David Civ.
pleading. my to- curiam issued Watkins, 2 Arkansas & John J. Newbern any analysis day explanation avoids or Proce- Series: Civil Practice Practice why the absent is essential to our ed.). (4th § 11:1 dure point-by-point What follows why sup- explanation addеndum require It has never been this court’s plemental pass muster every rules that ment in our ripe our review this present judge be included response before case. we addendum. That is the reason (cid:127) his Appellant did not include require adopted the rule 2001 to complaint, amended which added to an under pleadings “essential relevant Cotter against claim and Gassville of the case.” In re standing Modification warranty. implied breach of Abstracting System — Amendments claim is in this issue 2-3, 4-2, 4-3, and Supreme Court Rules and need included in the not be. (2001) (“The 4-4, App’x addendum. and at theme the comments recurring (cid:127) The first issue relates proposal of the Committee’s the heart limitations be- statute of on the appeals to decided the need for to run at the of occurrence gins time merits.”). that is obvi reason for 11flThe discovery. Though only we need appellate judges, As ous. Grubbs, is essential our understand have what Hoskyn’s summary judg- *6 us on ing of those before addendum, appel- is not either ment every response. Grubbs, seven Hoskyn spends lee to know equally important It for us pages in its to that us raised to arguments that the issues describing what judge. trial appeal were raised to the supplemen- responding it. See cases, that can be determined In certain pp. By anyone’s tal addendum 33-39. from a the order or or even from measure, sufficiently that describes arguments listing of those issues and us what was tells occurred instant case.1 We reply, as short, argued judge. far, however, require ev- go too when we Grubbs, Hoskyn cured that appellee included ery Furthermore, motion and to be appellant omission. . But argued addendum. that is the direction to the trial argu- be- that judge hearing, court is It almost at the going. which this through pages abstracted in to ab- ment is appellate attorney now hooves 7. trial hearings complete all and the stract (cid:127) every relates to pleading, include The next issue
and to in the con- exculpatory language found pro- brief in sponse, and all essen- to affirm could be invoked if numerous occa- record 1. This court has stated on motions, go affirm a that we can record to documents neces- sions to the tial judgment even when circuit court order оr sary review must be either abstracted for our motions, pertinent pleadings, and docu- end placed the addendum on front placed in the ments are not abstracted or compliant with for the to be in order Allison, addendum. Allen least, very another At the this is our rules. prin- That be this court. area that must clarified begs going to the ciple when 2(a)(8), issue in provisions specifically tract at SC 26 and and to detail precisely which appellee Appel- SC on relies. what needs to be included in the counsel, The per individ- says addendum. curiam Bryan’s page lant at abstract ual rebriefing orders from the court special alludes both conditions. have referred to absent motions and re- But importantly, more sponses in additiоn to “relevant pleadings.” Grubbs, Hoskyn’s reply But Rule require does not that. Bryan’s response Bryan’s details argu- regarding provisions ments SC 26 and Perhaps, importantly, more we need to responds 7 and then argu- SC those bar, explain light today’s ments. See supplemental addendum curiam, motions, that even though pp. 70-78. replies, and the order in the (cid:127) meruit, Regarding quantum, describe issues raised to the sup- trial court, is not enough. This
plemental addendum does include including filings, wants all and an pellant Bryan’s complaint, fully which 11sbriefs abstract of the hearing that touch and quantum claim for describes court, concern the issues before this to be meruit relief. See supplemental ad- addendum, included in the abstract and p. dendum 8. The cities and Garver even though glean- information can be | ^Bryan’s quantum me- also refer ed filings. from other ruit claim and argue against it at the summary-judgment hearing. See ab- amendments rules, Without such to our p. stract for rebriefing orders will continue to (there already mushroom been twelve I firmly that it the obligation believe August), since last and confusion per- will this court decide eases when the sist. essence of what was the trial judge before placed been abstracted and reasons, ad- For all of these I respectfully emphasis dendum. Our should on ana- dissent.
lyzing absent is es-
sential to an it when has been
adequately described in another motion or
order,
or the
than
rather
automati-
addendum and we decided the motion was Hendrix, Bryant essential. See CIRCUIT COURT OF PULASKI COUNTY, DIVISION, NINTH analysis should do the same in every case Respondent. for an absent motion response. Clearly, No. 08-1236. we did an analysis not do in the case at Supreme Court of Arkansas. Again, hand. motions and not pleadings. April opinions
What illustrate is the Rules,
need to our Supreme amend Court