Michael Teston v. Arkansas State Board of Chiropractic Examiners

Annotate this Case
ca04-420

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

MICHAEL TESTON

APPELLANT

V.

ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF CHIROPRACTIC EXAMINERS

APPELLEE

CA04-420

June 23, 2004

APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CV 03-502]

HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS FOX, CIRCUIT JUDGE

MOTIONS GRANTED

Per Curiam

In separate motions, J. Kent Culley and Richard B. Tucker, III, representing the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy, and John J. Bennett, who is General Counsel for the American Physical Therapy Association of the District of Columbia, seek admission pro hac vice in this matter so that each may file an amicus brief. See Bar Admis. R. XIV; Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-6. In their separate supporting affidavits, Culley and Tucker aver that they are residents of Pennsylvania, that they are licensed attorneys in good standing there, that Pennsylvania accords similar comity to Arkansas lawyers, and that they submit to all disciplinary procedures applicable to Arkansas lawyers. Bennett avers that he is a nonresident of Arkansas, that he is a licensed attorney in good standing in the District of Columbia, that the District of Columbia accords similar comity to Arkansas lawyers, and that he submits to all disciplinary procedures applicable to Arkansas lawyers.

Each attorney has contacted the Clerk of the Arkansas Supreme Court and has completed the requirements for admission. Their respective motions to file an amicus brief are granted, and each brief shall be filed at the time set forth in Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-6(a). We ask, however, that the attorneys not file separate amicus briefs that merely copy the efforts of each other, and we suggest that, if the briefs are to cover the same issues, they should collaborate to prepare only one brief.

Motions granted.