James Tree & Crane Serv. Inc. v. Fought (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2015 Ark. 6 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-14-585 JAMES TREE AND CRANE SERVICE, INC., AND ROGER WILLIAMS APPELLANTS Opinion Delivered January 15, 2015 PETITION FOR JUDICIAL RELIEF V. PETITION GRANTED; SHOWCAUSE ORDER ISSUED. TERRI FOUGHT APPELLEE PER CURIAM Appellants James Tree and Crane Service, Inc., and Roger Williams have filed a petition for judicial relief seeking a further extension of time to file the record. As per their request, this court previously, on July 31, 2014, issued a writ of certiorari for the court reporter to complete the record within ten days. After granting an additional twenty-day extension of time to lodge the record, on October 9, 2014, we granted a final sixty-day extension of the writ for the record to be completed and filed with this court on December 8, 2014. On December 5, 2014, appellants filed the present petition stating that the court reporter, Sheila Russell, had advised them that the record would not be completed by the December 8, 2014 deadline. Appellants seek additional time for the court reporter to prepare the record. We find that the court reporter’s failure to comply with the writ of certiorari is good cause to grant the petition, and we extend the time for filing the record to Wednesday, Cite as 2015 Ark. 6 January 28, 2015. In addition, we order Sheila Russell to appear before this court on Thursday, January 29, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for her failure to comply with the writ of certiorari, as previously ordered. SHEILA RUSSELL IS FURTHER NOTIFIED THAT HER FAILURE TO APPEAR ON JANUARY 29, 2015, COULD RESULT IN THE ISSUANCE OF A BENCH WARRANT FOR HER ARREST WITH DIRECTIONS TO THE APPROPRIATE LAW ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY TO ARRANGE FOR HER DELIVERY TO THIS COURT SO A SHOW-CAUSE HEARING CAN BE CONDUCTED AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE. Petition granted; show-cause order issued. Watts, Donovan & Tilley, P.A., by: Jim Tilley and Michael McCarty Harrison, for appellants. No response. 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.
