Rogers v. Tudor Ins. Co

In Rogers v. Tudor Ins. Co., 325 Ark. 226, 925 S.W.2d 395 (1996), an appellee moved to dismiss an appeal on the grounds that the appellant's notice of appeal was ineffective because it did not state that the transcript had been ordered from the court reporter, as required by Rule 3(e). Instead, appellant's notice stated that no transcript had been ordered because no testimony was taken and that the appeal would be based entirely on pleadings, motions, and orders on file in the clerk's office. The supreme court held that the appellant had substantially complied with Rule 3(e) and that appellee had not been prejudiced because appellant's failure to state that the transcript had been ordered from the court reporter was of no consequence where there was no testimony to be transcribed, and where appellant had filed a designation of the record two weeks after filing the notice of appeal. The court stated: "We discern no intent on Rogers' part to disregard Rule 3(e). Moreover, there was no prejudice to Tudor Insurance occasioned by the failure to designate the record or to state that the transcript had been ordered within the 30-day period. The absence of prejudice, of course, does not automatically determine the substantial-compliance question. But here, the Designation of the Record, which designated the pleadings, motions, and orders, was filed two weeks after the notice of appeal." (Rogers, 325 Ark. at 232, 925 S.W.2d at 399.)