AT&T Advertising v. McBryde
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 634
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA09-150
AT&T ADVERTISING,
SOUTHWESTERN BELL YELLOW
PAGES
APPELLANT
V.
Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER
30, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CV-08-1258-2]
HONORABLE KIM MARTIN SMITH,
JUDGE
C.B. MCBRYDE, RELIABLE AUTO
CARE, LLC
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
AT&T Advertising L.P. appeals from an order of the Washington County Circuit
Court dismissing its complaint against C. Bryan McBryde for breach of contract. AT&T filed
a posttrial motion with the circuit court, which was deemed denied when the court failed to
act within thirty days. AT&T contends on appeal that the circuit court erred in denying its
motion for new trial on the basis of newly discovered evidence. We affirm the denial of the
posttrial motion by memorandum opinion. See In re Memorandum Opinions, 16 Ark. App.
301, 700 S.W.2d 63 (1985).
We have held that memorandum opinions may be issued in any or all of the following
cases:
(a) Where the only substantial question involved is the sufficiency of the
evidence;
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 634
(b) Where the opinion, or findings of fact and conclusions of law, of the trial
court or agency adequately explain the decision and we affirm;
(c) Where the trial court or agency does not abuse its discretion and that is the only substantial
issue involved; and
(d) Where the disposition of the appeal is clearly controlled by a prior holding
of this court or the Arkansas Supreme Court and we do not find that our
holding should be changed or that the case should be certified to the supreme
court.
Id. at 302, 700 S.W.2d at 63.
The only issue involved in this case is whether the circuit court abused its discretion
in denying AT&T’s motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See Roetzel
v. Brown, 321 Ark. 187, 190, 900 S.W.2d 185, 186 (1995) (holding trial court did not abuse
its discretion in denying motion for new trial). We hold that the circuit court did not abuse
its discretion, and we affirm by memorandum opinion.
Affirmed.
VAUGHT, C.J., and HART, J., agree.
-2-
CA08-1507
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.
