Billie Jo Greenlee v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc., et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE DIVISIONS III and IV CA07-1254 November 5, 2008 BILLIE JO GREENLEE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. CV-03-835-1] V. HON. TOM KEITH, JUDGE J.B. HUNT TRANSPORT, INC., ET AL. APPELLEES REBRIEFING ORDERED Appellant appeals from a summary judgment in favor of her former employer in an action based on asserted violations of the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. We do not address the merits of the appeal at this time because appellant’s abstract and addendum do not comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(5) and (8). Appellant’s addendum includes neither the complaint nor the answer. Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires that “relevant pleadings” be included in the addendum and, given that the issue in this case is the propriety of a summary judgment, the complaint and the answer are essential to our understanding of the case. See Heard v. Regions Bank, 369 Ark. 274, 235 S.W.3d 422 (2007). Furthermore, we note that appellant has included verbatim excerpts of several deposition transcripts in her addendum; these excerpts should instead have been submitted as impartial first-person narratives in the abstract. Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5); Lackey v. Mays, 100 Ark. App. 386, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007). Appellant is granted leave to file a complying substituted abstract, brief, and addendum within fifteen days. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). Rebriefing ordered. H ART, G LADWIN, and H EFFLEY, JJ., agree. B AKER, J., concurs. H UNT, J., dissents. H UNT, J., dissenting. I disagree with the majority’s decision to send this case back for rebriefing. The appellant’s abstract and addendum are not so deficient that the court cannot reach the merits of this case. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3). I would consider this appeal on the merits instead of causing an unnecessary delay of this court’s decision. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. -2- CA07-1254

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.