Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 400 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CA11-509 Opinion Delivered June 20, 2012 DAVID W. PASCHAL APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. DR-2011-21-7] V. HONORABLE JOANNA TAYLOR, JUDGE TRESSA PASCHAL APPELLEE REBRIEFING ORDERED RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge David Paschal appeals from the order of protection entered by the Washington County Circuit Court on February 7, 2011. We order rebriefing a second time. Paschal v. Paschal, 2012 Ark. App. 18. Appellant’s substituted brief again fails to comply with our rules regarding abstracting because it is in question-and-answer format. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5) (2011). Because appellant has failed to comply with our rule concerning abstracting, we order appellant to file a substituted brief curing the deficiencies in the abstract within fifteen days from the date of entry of this order. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). Before filing the substituted brief, counsel should review the model appellant’s brief posted on the Arkansas Judiciary website. After service of the substituted brief, appellee will have the opportunity to file a responsive
Cite as 2012 Ark. App. 400 brief in the time prescribed by the supreme court clerk. Appellant’s counsel is strongly encouraged to review Rule 4-2 in its entirety as it relates to the abstract and addendum, as well as the entire record, to ensure that no additional deficiencies are present. Failure to file a complying abstract, addendum, and brief within the prescribed time may result in affirmance of the order or judgment due to noncompliance with Rule 4-2. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2011); see also Kirkland v. Sandlin, 2011 Ark. 106 (per curiam). Rebriefing ordered. VAUGHT, C.J., and ROBBINS, J., agree. The Copeland Law Firm, by: Casey D. Copeland, for appellant. No response. 2
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.