MANILA SCH. DIST. No. 15 v. WAGNER ARK.] Cite as 356 Ark. 505 (2004) 505 MANILA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 15 v. Charolette WAGNER, Jimmy White, Harold Lee Evans, and E.A. Shaneyfelt 03-755 157 S.W3d 529 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered March 29, 2004 APPEAL & ERROR - INTERVENORS ELECTION NOT TO FILE BRIEF DID NOT COMPLY WITH PREVIOUS ORDER - INTERVENORS ORDERED TO FILE BRIEF. - Where the intervenors elected not to file a brief on three particular issues, as had been previously ordered by the supreme court, and instead sent a letter to the court clerk, stating that they had chosen not to pursue the injunction any further and that the issue should now be moot, the letter was unacceptable, as it did not
MANILA SCH. DIST. No. 15 V. WAGNER 506 Cite as 356 Ark. 505 (2004) [356 comply with the court's previous order; thus, intervenors were ordered to file a briefin this matter, addressing the three issues set out in the March 11, 2004, per curiam. Briefing ordered and oral argument set. Mike Gibson; and W.Paul Blume, for petitioners. W. Hunter Williams, Jr., for respondents. Bearden Law Firm, by: Mike Bearden, for intervenors. p ER CURIAM. This case arose from the Mississippi County Circuit Court's grant of an ex parte injunction prohibiting Petitioner Manila School District No. 15 from hiring a superintendent to replace Respondent Charolette Wagner. The injunction was granted on behalf of three Respondents, Jimmy White, Harold Lee Evans, and E.A. Shaneyfelt, who were permitted by the trial court to intervene in the suit between the District and Wagner. We recently issued a per curiam opinion granting Petitioner's motion to expedite and instructing all parties to this case to file simultaneous briefs on three particular issues: (1) whether Respondents-Intervenors had standing to seek an injunction; (2) whether the irreparable harm relied on to grant the injunction is the same as that relied upon to grant a previous injunction to Respondent Wagner; and (3) whether this court may, at this stage of the proceedings, act on the District's motion to remove the trial judge, the Honorable Victor Hill, from the case. See Manila Sch. Dist. No. 15 V. Wagner, 356 Ark. 421, 155 S.W.3d 1 (2004) (per curiam). The District and Wagner both filed their briefs on March 18, 2004. The Intervenors, however, elected not to file a brief Instead, their attorney, Mike Bearden, sent a letter to our court clerk, stating that his clients have chosen not to pursue the injunction any further and that the issue should now be moot. This letter is unacceptable, as it does not comply with our previous order in this matter. [1] We hereby order and direct Intervenors to file a brief in this matter, addressing the three issues set out in our March 11, 2004, per curiam. Intervenors have until Monday April 5, 2004, to file their brief. We further order the attorneys for all parties to appear before this court at 9:00 a.m. on April 8, 2004, for oral argument in this matter. It is so ordered.
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.