Maulding v. Price's Utility Contractors, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
08-1449
ROBERT MAULDING,
Opinion Delivered February
12, 2009
APPELLANT,
MOTION REQUESTING
CLARIFICATION REGARDING
REDACTING ISSUES
VS.
PRICE’S UTILITY CONTRACTORS,
INC., ET AL,
APPELLEES,
DENIED.
PER CURIAM
Appellant Robert Maulding seeks an order that all medical information regarding him
be redacted in the abstracts, briefs, and addendums. This motion was certified to this court
by the court of appeals because it concerns an issue of first impression. Thus, our jurisdiction
is pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(b)(1)(2008).
Maulding states that “this is an appeal from an Arkansas Workers’ Compensation
Commission case,” and that “the Argument, Abstract, and Addendum” will contain “a lot of
personal medical information” that “should not be in the public domain. . . .” He asks this
court to order that “all medical information” be redacted by “lining out” with a “permanent
black marker.”
Maulding provides no reason for the requested redaction. He provides no convincing
argument and no authority to show that his medical information should be excluded from the
briefs on appeal. He simply asserts it should be excluded. This court will not consider an
argument, even a constitutional one, if the appellant makes no convincing argument or cites
no authority to support it. Hendrix v. Black, 373 Ark. 266, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008). Also, if
the point argued is not apparent without research, this court will not hear the matter. Id.
Further, the issue is moot. At issue are documents in the addendum. An addendum
appends to the brief documents that are found in the record. See Ark. Sup Ct. R. 42(a)(8)(2008) (The addendum must include an index of where any item can be found in the
record.) Thus, the very information Maulding seeks to redact was disclosed below and already
is in the record. Although Maulding fails to cite it, Administrative Order No. 19(VI)(A)
specifically provides that where the information has already been disclosed in open court and
is included in the verbatim transcript of court proceedings, the information is not excluded
from public access.
The motion is denied.
-2-
08-1449
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.
