Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

184 Ark. 995

43 S.W.2d 1075

Knight v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 14, 1931

Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1931-12-14

Relies on In re Barstow · Bell v. Rice · Reynolds v. Union Bank Trust Company

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1931-12-14

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1969

5 state decisions

301931194019501960decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

Per Curiam.

¶1 Petition of appellant for mandamus to require clerk to prepare a complete transcript of the record, including* the indictment and all papers on file in his office, is granted. Petition for mandamus to require stenographer to transcribe his notes is denied, it being the duty of the circuit court to do that.

¶2 Mandamus from this court in aid of its appellate jurisdiction is an appropriate remedy to spur the clerk to the performance of his duty to prepare a complete transcript of the record in his office in order that the case may be reviewed here. In re Barstow, 54 Ark. 551, 16 S. W. 574; Bell v. Rice, 183 Ark. 105, 35 S. W. (2d) 88.

¶3 This court has no jurisdiction to compel the stenographer to perform his duties. He is accountable to the circuit court which appointed him, whose duty it is to compel him to perform the duties required of him. Reynolds v. Union Bank & Trust Co., 182 Ark. 495, 30 S. W. (2d) 218; and Bell v. Rice, supra.

/184/ark/995 · .json · Public domain