Goldman v. Goldman
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 408
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CA08-639
Opinion Delivered
GREGORY SCOTT GOLDMAN
APPELLANT
May 12, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. DR-2002-216-3]
V.
HONORABLE WILLIAM BENTON,
JUDGE
SANDRA L. GOLDMAN
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
This is an appeal from an order finding appellant in contempt for violations of previous
decrees and orders entered in what appellant describes as a “vitriolic, litigious and convoluted
divorce matter.” We affirm.
Appellant’s entire argument on appeal reads exactly as follows:
The applicable standard of review is argued to be de novo. (Pomraning
v. Pomraning, 13 Ark. App. 258, 682 S.W.2d 755 (1985).
The Statement of the Case herein referencing pertinent elements of both
subject Abstract and Addendum indicates, relative to A.C.A. 9-12-101 et seq.)
that:
The Court erred in ruling Defendant in contempt.
The Court should Order a formal investigation of all the points alluded
to during Appellant’s hearing relative to malfeasances and misfeasances by, and
as specifically documented in the District Court’s Exhibits 1 and 2 (R 190-191
and A 25 and 26) and Defendant’s Exhibits 1 and 2 (R 251 and 252 and A 27
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 408
and 28), without limitation, the Court, Appellee, Appellee’s Attorney,
Appellant’s prior attorney, including, without limitation, conspiracy between
and/or among the aforementioned, and all other governmental and nongovernmental parties. (Neal v. Neal, 258 Ark. 338, 524 S.W.2d 460 (1975).
The two-page statement of the case referenced in appellant’s argument cites numerous
pages of the abstract, hints at the nature of the order appealed from, and makes neither
allegation nor argument that any specific error occurred. In a similar case involving an
argument that was perhaps more coherent than that now before us, the esteemed Justice
George Rose Smith wrote:
In effect the court is asked to research the law and to hold in favor of the appellant if
the result of our labor so demands. We must decline that invitation. We adopt the
position taken by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in its own syllabus in Irwin v. Irwin,
416 P.2d 853 (1966): “Assignments of error presented by counsel in their brief,
unsupported by convincing argument or authority, will not be considered on appeal,
unless it is apparent without further research that they are well taken.”
Dixon v. State, 260 Ark. 857, 862, 545 S.W.2d 606, 609 (1977). Here, appellant has merely
made a general assertion of error without identifying any specific error he believes to have
occurred or explaining why he believes the trial court was mistaken. An argument is not
sufficient if it simply invites the court to search the record generally for errors. Lavaca
Telephone Co. v. Arkansas Public Service Commission, 65 Ark. App. 263, 986 S.W.2d 146 (1999).
Affirmed.
H ART and B AKER, JJ., agree.
-2-
CA08-639
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.
