Aрpellant, Dan C. Edwards, appeals from an order of the Washington Circuit Court dismissing his petition for mandamus. Separate appellees, Marlene Ray and Job Serebrov, cross-appeal from the sаme order which also dismisses their cross-petition. We affirm the direct appeal for failure to comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(d). We dismiss the cross-appeal as the record does not show that a notice of сross-appeal was ever filed.
The requirements of an abstract are clearly stated in Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9 and we have interpreted those requirements time and time again in numerous opinions. See e.g., Mills v. Holland,
The word “only” is emphasized to stress that extraneous material should be omitted. However, some portions of the record are essential to an adequate understanding of the specific issues. They normally include at a minimum motions and orders relative to the argument raised.
In the present case, appellant did not include any pleadings, documents, or orders in his abstract. He merely listed the title of each pleading or dоcument and its corresponding page number in the transcript. It seems too simple to require our stating sо, but apparently we must: an abstract of appellant’s petition for mandamus and the trial court’s оrder dismissing his petition is necessary to our decision of the questions presented in this appeal. To decide this appeal, we must, at an absolute minimum, know what the trial court ruled before we can pоssibly determine any error. See Hunter,
The absence of pleadings and documents is not the only deficiеncy in appellant’s abstract. The transcript of the hearing on appellees’ motion to dismiss the petition for mandamus is abstracted in the third person. According to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(d), the hearing must be abstracted in thе first person. Abstracting dialogue or testimony in the first person is much easier on both the one making the abstract and the one reading the abstract. Even if the abstract of the hearing was in the correct person, it would still be deficient because it does not supply the information necessary for deciding this cаse. To illustrate the deficiency in the abstract of the hearing, we quote the following paragraph of appellant’s abstract:
Response to Motion to Dismiss by Mr. Donner, counsel for Appellant Dаn Edwards: Argument that action is an election contest, contesting Appellee Neuse’s qualifications to vote on quorum court district boundaries (T-94 and T-95).
Appellant’s abstract page 9. From the foregoing quоtation, it is impossible for us to know the particular basis of appellant’s argument that appellеe Neuse was disqualified. Thus, we are faced with an abstract that does not tell us anything about the arguments raised below or the trial court’s rulings thereon.
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(e)(1) states that if an appellee considers an аbstract to be deficient, he or she may elect to cure the deficiency by submitting a supplementаl abstract. This is not a mandatory requirement. However, it is interesting to note that four of the seven briefs filed in this appeal presented the various attorneys with opportunities to supply us with a sufficient abstract, yet no such opportunity was taken.
Regardless of whether an appellee calls a defiсient abstract to our attention, it is a matter we consider when the case is submitted on the merits. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 9(e) (2). We have the option of affirming the appeal for non-compliance with Rule 9, or if we consider affirmance to be unduly harsh, we may order the parties to re-brief the case. Id. In this particular cаse, information about the proceedings below is sketchy at best. Based on the. extremely limited informаtion we have before us, it appears that appellant’s claim has no merit. Therefore, wе consider an affirmance for failure to comply with Rule 9 not to be unduly harsh in this case.
Appelleеs Ray and Serebrov add three additional points on cross-appeal. However, neither appellant’s abstract nor appellees’ supplemental abstract indicate that appellees Ray and Serebrov filed a notice of cross-appeal. Moreover, we are informed the transcript does not indicate that a notice of cross-appeal was evеr filed. As appellees Ray and Serebrov seek affirmative relief and have failed to file the requisite notice of cross-appeal, we dismiss their cross-appeal. Pledger v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.,
Affirmed on direct appeal; dismissed on cross-appeal.