Hays Grocery Store v. Linda Arnold

Annotate this Case
ca04-890

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DIVISION II

HAYS GROCERY STORE,

APPELLANT

V.

LINDA ARNOLD,

APPELLEE

CA04-890

MARCH 23, 2005

APPEAL FROM PHILLIPS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

NO. CV-2003-280,

HONORABLE L.T. SIMES II, JUDGE

REBRIEFING ORDERED

Sam Bird, Judge

Appellant Hays Grocery Store appeals from a judgment entered against it on May 24, 2004, awarding $85,000 to appellee Linda Arnold in connection with a slip-and-fall incident. On appeal, appellant contends (1) that the trial court erred in failing to grant its motion for a directed verdict and (2) that the trial court erred in refusing to allow Hays to show a video surveillance tape. Because appellant failed to include its notice of appeal in the Addendum to its brief, we order rebriefing.

Failure to include the notice of appeal violates Rule 4-2(a)(8) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. Villines v. Harris, ___ Ark. ___, ___S.W.3d ___ (March 3, 2005). Without a notice of appeal in the Addendum, we cannot determine whether this court has jurisdiction to decide this case. See Branscumb v. Freeman, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (June 10, 2004).

Pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2004), this court finds that the Addendum is deficient, and appellant is granted fifteen days from the date of the entry of this order within which to file a substituted brief with an amended Addendum. See Villines v. Harris, supra. Furthermore, this court may affirm the judgment under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) if such brief, including an amended Addendum, is not filed within the fifteen days. See id.

Rebriefing ordered.

Glover and Roaf, JJ., agree.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.