ARK.] 53 Christi Lynn STURCH v. James Paul STURCH
93-574 870 S.W.2d 720 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered February 21, 1994 APPEAL & ERROR - ABSTRACT FLAGRANTLY DEFICIENT. - Arkansas Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) requires an abstract to consist of material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters necessary to an understanding of the question presented to the court; where appellant's abstract consisted solely of a one-half page portion of the chancellor's divorce decree, the abstract was flagrantly deficient; it was impossible to locate any factors that led to the chancellor's ruling, and it was impossible to address adequately the point on appeal. Appeal from Pulaski Chancery Court; Annabelle Clinton Imber, Chancellor; affirmed. Gregory E. Bryant, for appellant. Dana Sue West, for appellee. DAVID NEWBERN, Justice. Christi Sturch appeals a divorce decree from Pulaski County Chancery Court. We affirm the Chancellor's decision pursuant to Ark. Rule Sup. Ct. 4-2(b)(2) due to the appellant's flagrantly deficient abstract. [1] Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(6) requires an abstract to consist of material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters necessary to an understanding of the question presented to the court. In this appeal the appellant's abstract consists solely of a one-half page portion of the Chancellor's divorce decree. From this abstract it is impossible to locate any factors that led to the Chancellor's ruling which resulted in this appeal. For this reason it is impossible to address adequately the point on appeal, and we will not attempt to do so. Affirmed.
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.