# Riddell Flying Service v. Callahan

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · April 6, 2005 · 90 Ark. App. 388

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620772

## Case

- **Full name:** RIDDELL FLYING SERVICE v. Clarence CALLAHAN, Et. Al.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** April 6, 2005
- **Citations:** 90 Ark. App. 388; 206 S.W.3d 284
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roaf
- **Judges:** John B. Robbins
- **Cited by:** 8 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620772

## Opinion text

Andree Layton Roaf, Judge, concurring. I agree with the majority’s discussion concerning affirmance of this case. However, I would affirm without addressing the merits based upon Riddell Flying Service’s failure to bring up a record sufficient for us to examine the relationship between the United States Forest Service (USFS) and the Arkansas Forestry Commission (AFC), pursuant to the receipt of “FEMA” funds. The only mention of the substance of this relationship in the addendum before us is contained in the ALJ and dissenting commissioners’ opinions, where there is reference to a “Wildlife Abatement Plan” prepared by USFS and AFC and excerpts from this plan which reference a “cooperative agreement” between AFC and the USFS, and the stipulations regarding the plan entered into by the parties. It may be that these excerpts constitute the substance of the plan with regard to the issue of whether AFC is a contractor of USFS. However, this court has never considered such as a substitute for the document or contract under review. Nat’l Enterprises, Inc. v. Rea, 329 Ark. 332 , 947 S.W.2d 378 (1997). In this case it is the agreement itself, and not what the ALJ and a dissenting commissioner choose to say about it or excerpt from it, that the appellant should have provided. Moreover, we do not go to the
record to reverse a case. Russell v. State, 85 Ark. App. 468 , 157 S.W.3d 561 (2004); Camp v. State, 66 Ark. App. 134 , 991 S.W.2d 611 (1999).
Baker, J., joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9620772. Public record. Not legal advice.