Bradbury v. Harvey (Majority)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 538 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-16-97 Opinion Delivered RALPH BRADBURY V. November 9, 2016 APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH DIVISION [NO. 60CV-2011-5472] EDWARD HARVEY; BONNIE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER HARVEY; and MARVIN JONES CHARLES PIAZZA, JUDGE APPELLEES APPEAL DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; MOTION TO DISMISS MOOT BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge Ralph Bradbury appeals two Pulaski County Circuit Court summary-judgment orders. We must dismiss this appeal without prejudice because there is no final order in the circuit court. Whether an order is final and therefore appealable is a jurisdictional question that this court will raise on its own. Kowalski v. Rose Drugs of Dardanelle, Inc., 2009 Ark. 524, 357 S.W.3d 432. The orders that Bradbury has appealed are not final because they do not resolve Edward Harvey’s and Bonnie Harvey’s counterclaim against Bradbury for an alleged breach of fiduciary duty. See City of Corning v. Cochran, 350 Ark. 12, 14, 84 S.W.3d 439, 441 (2002) (pending counterclaim destroys finality). 1 Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 538 We take this opportunity to remind Bradbury that, should he appeal again, his addendum must include all papers that are essential to confirm our jurisdiction. Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8)(A) (2015). A final point. The Harveys moved to dismiss Bradbury’s appeal because “the claims against the John Doe defendants are not adjudicated and continue to exist” and that an order dismissing two defendants from the case was entered after Bradbury had filed his notice of appeal. Based on our finality decision, the motion is moot. Appeal dismissed without prejudice; motion to dismiss moot. VIRDEN and BROWN, JJ., agree. Jack Nelson Jones, P.A., by: Randy Coleman, for appellant. Barber Law Firm PLLC, by: Robert L. Henry III, for appellees Edward Harvey and Bonnie Harvey. Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A., by: David M. Donovan, for appellee Marvin Jones. 2
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.
