Jeff House and Don Strahl vs. Honorable John N. Fogleman, Circuit Judge. Petition for Writ of Certiorari and Mandamus denied. (2 PAGES PUBLISHED) [HTML, WP5.1]

Annotate this Case
04-1072

Jeff HOUSE and Don Strahl v. Honorable John N. FOGLEMAN, Circuit Judge

04-1072

Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered October 15, 2004

Appeal & error - petition for writ of certiorari & mandamus - denied. - Where the time remaining before the general election did not allow the supreme court sufficient time to have the matter thoroughly briefed and reviewed; moreover, petitioners relied on two cases that had been overruled by the court, their petition for a writ of certiorari and mandamus was denied.

Petition for writ of Certiorari and Mandamus; denied.

Charles Brian Williams, for petitioners.

Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen., by: Tim Gauger, Ass't Att'y Gen., for respondent.

Per Curiam. Petitioners move for an accelerated proceeding and petition for writ of certiorari and mandamus. We deny the petition for certiorari and mandamus. The Petitioners seek an order from this court vacating the orders of the circuit court and directing the West Memphis city clerk to count the signatures on the petitions before a deficiency in the petitions due to the absence of an enacting clause on the proposed initiative is addressed. A second issue is whether amended petitions filed less than sixty days before the General Election violated Article 5, ยง1 of the ArkansasConstitution.

At this writing, the General Election will be held in seventeen days. That time frame does not allow this court sufficient time to have the matter thoroughly briefed and reviewed. See, e.g., Stilley v. Young, 342 Ark. 378, 28 S.W.3d 858 (2000) (per curiam). Moreover, the petitioners rely on two cases that have been overruled by this court. See Finn v. McCuen, 303 Ark. 418, 798 S.W.2d 34 (1990) and Scott v. McCuen, 289 Ark. 41, 709 S.W.2d 77 (1986), overruled by Stilley v. Priest, 341 Ark. 329, 16 S.W.3d 251 (2000).

Petition denied.

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.