ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No.CV-15-1033
Opinion Delivered October 19, 2016
JOHNNY WARREN APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
TWELFTH DIVISION
V. [NO. 60CV-12-2596]
ANTHONY FRIZELL HONORABLE ALICE S. GRAY,
APPELLEE JUDGE
REBRIEFING ORDERED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Johnny Warren sued appellee Anthony Frizell for negligence after Frizell
rear-ended Warren in an automobile accident. A jury trial took place on January 7, 2015.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict in Frizell’s favor. A judgment based
on the jury’s verdict was filed on July 15, 2015, dismissing Warren’s complaint with prejudice.
Warren filed a motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) and for a new trial
on July 21, 2015. The court never acted on the motion, and it was deemed denied after
thirty days. Warren filed a timely notice of appeal on September 17, 2015. On appeal,
Warren argues that (1) the trial court erred when it did not enter a judgment in favor of
Warren for his medical expenses and (2) the trial court erred by denying Warren’s motion for
a new trial. Frizell cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in finding that Frizell was
Cite as
not contesting that Warren’s medical treatment was reasonable and necessary and that Warren
needed to be off work.1 We are unable to reach the merits of the parties’ arguments at this
time due to deficiencies in Warren’s brief.
In the argument section of Warren’s brief, he provides page references only to the
record, not the abstract or addendum,2 in violation of our rules. Arkansas Supreme Court
Rule 4-2(a)(7) 3 provides that reference in the argument portion of the parties’ briefs to
material found in the abstract and addendum shall be followed by a reference to the page
number of the abstract or addendum at which such material may be found. Because Warren
has failed to provide us with proper page references in the argument, we order rebriefing.4
Warren has fifteen days from the date of this opinion to file a substituted abstract, brief,
and addendum.5 We encourage appellate counsel to review our rules to ensure that no
additional deficiencies are present.
Rebriefing ordered
VAUGHT and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Willard Proctor, Jr., P.A., by: Willard Proctor, Jr., for appellant.
Laser Law Firm, by: Kevin Staten and Brian A. Brown, for appellee.
1
Frizell notes that this cross-appeal is filed in an abundance of caution in the event this
court decides to order remand on direct appeal.
2
Although references in the argument to the addendum are preceded by ADD, they
actually reference the record page of those documents.
3
(2015).
4
See Foster v. Estate of Collins,
(stating that we will order rebriefing
when our efforts to examine relevant parts of the testimony and evidence are frustrated by the
lack of proper references).
5
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(3).
2
