ARK.] 215 Leonard BURRIS, et al v.
Honorable Henry BRITT, Special Judge 83-219 667 S.W.2d 367 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered April 9, 1984 Motion to Retax the Costs and to Amend the Mandate; granted.* No response by petitioners. Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Kay J. Jackson Dernailly, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent. PER CURIAM. Respondent's motion to retax the costs and to amend the mandate is granted. The State is relieved from paying costs. PURTLE, J., dissents. JOHN I. PURTLE, Justice, dissenting. I think the court is wrong in retaxing the costs against the winning party. Just because the costs should not be taxed against Judge Britt or the State of Arkansas does not mean that the prevailing party should have to pay it pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-2320. In fact my reading of this statute clearly indicates that the clerk shall forfeit the fees in this case. We have a related serious problem with prevailing parties in this court, being unable to collect costs. This problem is represented by the per curiam handed down this date in case No. 82-233. The taxation of costs against a losing party in this court is usually paid but no entry of satisfaction is ever made. This may give the appearance of an unsatisfied j udgment. If we are unable to enforce our judgments and satisfy our records then we should request the General Assembly to remedy the situation for us. °The opinion on the merits of this case appears in 281 Ark. at 225, 663 S.W.2d 715 (1984).
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.