Landmark Novelties, Inc. v. Ark. State Bd. of Pharm.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 165 (unpublished)
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
CA08-543
No.
Opinion Delivered
LANDMARK NOVELTIES, INC.
APPELLANT
March 11, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CV-04-8762/2]
V.
HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER
CHARLES PIAZZA, JUDGE
ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF
PHARMACY
APPELLEE
CORRECTION OF THE RECORD
ORDERED; REBRIEFING ORDERED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Appellant, a novelty wholesale distributor, appeals the imposition of a fine and other
sanctions imposed by the State Board of Pharmacy based on the Board’s finding that
appellant failed to comply with state law requiring reporting of suspicious sales of products
containing pseudoephedrine and ephedrine. Appellant argues that the statute imposing the
reporting duty and the Board’s proceedings violated due process, and that the Board’s action
in assessing the fine was arbitrary and capricious. We order that the record be corrected and
that appellant submit a substituted abstract, brief, and addendum that conforms to the dictates
of Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8).
The record in this case is grossly out of sequence. For example, the page of the record
stamped “000122” is page 83 of the court reporter’s transcript, but the following page,
000123, skips to page 135 of the court reporter’s transcript. Likewise, transcript page 146
is followed in the record by page 153, which in turn is followed by 150, 151, and 88. Other
such examples are present throughout the record.
Because the singular degree of
disorganization of the record on appeal impedes our review, pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.–Civ.
6(e) we order the circuit clerk to correct the record within thirty days of the date of this
opinion.
The constitutional objections at the administrative hearing appear in the record
beginning on the page stamped “000050,” which is page 11 of the court reporter’s transcript.
These pages have not been abstracted by appellant. Because of this deficiency, we are unable
to reach the merits of the case. We are no longer permitted by rule to affirm because of such
a flagrant omission without first affording the appellant an opportunity to cure this and any
other deficiency in the abstract pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3) (2008). Therefore, we
allow appellant this opportunity.
A corrected record is to be submitted within thirty days of the date of this opinion,
with a conforming abstract, brief, and addendum to be filed within fifteen days thereafter.
Upon the filing of this substituted brief by appellant, appellee will be afforded an opportunity
to revise its own brief, if it deems it necessary, at appellant’s expense.
Correction of the record and rebriefing ordered.
G LADWIN and H ENRY, JJ., agree.
-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.
