Criminal Law · MBE-tested

Daniel Milburn HAINLINE v. STATE of Arkansas

342 Ark. 525 S.W.3d 413·Arkansas Supreme Court·2000·AR

Brief incoming

Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.

Opinion

Daniel Milburn HAINLINE v. STATE of Arkansas CR 00-798 25 S.W.3d 413 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered September 7, 2000 Davis & Zega, P.A., by: Boyce R. Davis, for appellant. No response. [MAJORITY — Per Curiam.] Per Curiam. Appellant, Daniel Milburn Hainline, by and through his attorney, has filed a motion for a rule on the clerk. His attorney, Boyce R. Davis, states in the motion that the record was tendered late due to a mistake on his part. We find that such an error, admittedly made by an attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. See In Re Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases, 265 Ark. 964 (1979) (per curiam). The motion is, therefore, granted. A copy of this opinion will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct.