¶1 We granted Rhonda Kimble’s petition for review of the court of appeals’ per curiam granting dismissal of her appeal. Appellee, now respondent, Robert Gray, Sr., previously asked the court of appeals to determine that Kimble had failed to file a timely appeal. The court of appeals found Kimble had filed her notice of appeal one day too early, and under the terms of Rule 4(c) of the Rules of Appellate Procedure, the court held Kimble’s notice of appeal had no effect. The court of appeals’ per curiam, Kimble v. Gray, Sr., 40 Ark. App. 196, 842 S.W.2d 473 (1992), succinctly sets out that court’s authority and reasons for dismissing Kimble’s appeal. Because we agree with the court of appeals’ per curiam and ruling, we merely affirm its decision.
313 Ark. 373
Kimble v. Gray
Decided June 1, 1991
Supreme Court of Arkansas · decided 1991-06-01
Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently May 2000
5 state decisions
Relies on Kimble v. Gray
Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know
Decided 1991-06-01
View the full empirical analysis of this case →