A Proper Notice of Appeal: Rule 3(e) & Recent Rulings

~ tory4b49875b201

THE GENERAL RULE: An appellant must “substantially comply” with Rule 3(e), which lists the requirements of a Notice of Appeal as follows:

  • Specify the party or parties taking the appeal;
  • Designate the judgment, decree, or order appealed from;
  • Designate the contents of the record on appeal;
  • State that the appellant has ordered the transcript and made financial arrangements with the court reporter, as required by Ark. Code Ann. 16-13-510(c);
  • State whether the appeal is to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court, and if it is to the Supreme Court, the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction as provided in Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a); and
  • State that the appealing party abandons any pending but unresolved claims.

RECENT RULINGS:

In Jackson-Rice v. Rice, 2026 Ark. App. 84 (Feb. 11, 2026), the Court of Appeals ruled that a Notice of Appeal did not substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 3(e) where the notice did not:

  • Designate the contents of the record on appeal;
  • State that the appellant had ordered the transcript and made financial arrangements with the court reporter; or
  • State that the appealing party abandoned any pending but unresolved claims.

In Rutland v. Stewart, 2026 Ark. App. 218 (April 8, 2026), the Court of Appeals ruled that a Notice of Appeal did not substantially comply with the requirements of Rule 3(e) where the notice did not:

  • Designate the contents of the record on appeal;
  • State that the appellant had ordered the transcript and made financial arrangements with the court reporter;
  • State whether the appeal was to the Court of Appeals or Supreme Court; or
  • State that the appealing party abandoned any pending but unresolved claims.

NOTEWORTHY TAKEAWAYS:

  • The requirement to abandon any pending but unresolved claims in the Notice of Appeal is a relatively new one. We sometimes advise clients to exclude that language, particularly where it is not in their interest to abandon pending claims. Jackson states that it is error to exclude that waiver language. That error standing alone probably would not warrant dismissal of an appeal (assuming the appellant met the other requirements of Rule 3(e)). Nonetheless, it should give us pause.
  •  In Rutland, the Notice of Appeal listed the order of dismissal as the only order from which the appeal was taken. The Court of Appeals stated that the Notice also should have listed the deemed denial of the Appellant’s new-trial motion since it was evident from the appellant’s brief that she intended to raise arguments on appeal that she had raised in her new-trial motion.

Published by tory4b49875b201