Ralph Loyd Martin Revocable Trust
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SLIP OPINION
Cite as 2009 Ark. 563
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
09-141
THE RALPH LOYD MARTIN
REVOCABLE TRUST DECLARATION
DATED THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL 1994;
RALPH LOYD MARTIN, TRUSTEE OF
THE RALPH LOYD MARTIN
REVOCABLE TRUST DECLARATION
DATED THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL 1994;
THE FESTU S M A RY M A RTIN
REVOCABLE TRUST DECLARATION
DATED THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL 1994;
and FESTUS MARY MARTIN, TRUSTEE
OF THE FESTUS MARY MARTIN
REVOCABLE TRUST DECLARATION
DATED THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL 1994,
APPELLANTS,
Opinion Delivered November
12, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE WHITE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CV08-294,
HON. WILLIAM PICKENS MILLS,
JUDGE,
VS.
ARKANSAS MIDSTREAM SERVICES
CORP.,
APPELLEE,
A P P E A L D IS M IS S E D
PREJUDICE.
W IT H O U T
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice
Appellants The Ralph Loyd Martin Revocable Trust Declaration Dated The First Day
Of April 1994; Ralph Loyd Martin, Trustee Of The Ralph Loyd Martin Revocable Trust
Declaration Dated The First Day Of April 1994; The Festus Mary Martin Revocable Trust
Declaration Dated The First Day Of April 1994; and Festus Mary Martin, Trustee Of The
Cite as 2009 Ark. 563
Festus Mary Martin Revocable Trust Declaration Dated The First Day Of April 1994, appeal
the December 18, 2008 order of the White County Circuit Court finding Arkansas Midstream
Gas Services Corporation had the power of eminent domain to condemn and take a
permanent easement and a temporary easement in appellants’ land for purposes of
constructing and maintaining a gas pipeline. The order entered on December 18, 2008,
includes a certification purported to comply with the requirements of Arkansas Rule of Civil
Procedure 54(b)(1), stating in pertinent part as follows:
With respect to the issues determined in the above final order, the Court
incorporates the findings of fact set forth above.
Upon the basis of the foregoing factual findings, the Court hereby certified, in
accordance with Rule 54(b)(1), Ark. R. Civ. P., that it has determined that there is no
just reason for the delay of the entry of a final judgment and that the Court has and
does direct that the judgment shall be a final judgment for all purposes.
This certificate fails to comply with the requirements of Rule 54(b)(1) because it fails
to set out the factual underpinnings as to why a hardship or injustice would result if an
immediate appeal is not permitted. See Kowalski v. Rose Drugs of Dardanelle, Inc., 2009
Ark. 524, ___ S.W.3d ___; Howard v. The Dallas Morning News, Inc., 324 Ark. 91, 97, 918
S.W.2d 178, 181 (1996). Due to noncompliance with Rule 54(b)(1), we lack jurisdiction.
See McKinney v. Bishop, 369 Ark. 191, 194, 252 S.W.3d 123, 125 (2007). Accordingly, we
dismiss this appeal without prejudice.
IMBER, J., not participating.
-2-
09-141
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.
