Opinion highlights for the week of February 15, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals listed twelve decisions on its February 18, 2026, docket.  The Arkansas Supreme Court listed five the next day, but one of those decisions was handed down last week and was counted in the last "Opinion Highlights" - so there are just four new decisions this week.  Let's note two of those Court of Appeals decisions here.

An administrative appeal was dismissed without prejudice in Arkansas Towing & Recovery Board v. A-1 Recovery Towing, 2026 Ark. App. 102.  A-1 Towing appealed a decision of the Board; the circuit court remanded the matter for a new hearing and directed that a Board member recuse.  The Board then appealed that circuit court order.

The Court of Appeals noted that a "circuit court's order of remand to an administrative agency for further proceedings is not a final, appealable order." Id. at 4.  "If [an order to remand] directs the agency to complete a step that is a predicate to the circuit court reaching its ultimate decision" then that order is not final and appealable. Id.  In that situation, the circuit court's order contemplates that the agency will complete its task on remand, and if the matter returns to the circuit court it will then reach a final decision.  The circuit court did not rule on the merits here, and in light of these rules, dismissal was compelled.

In Martin v. Higgins, 2026 Ark. App. 104, Martin appealed the circuit court's ruling on two points.  The Court of Appeals noted his inconsistent position when arguing one of those points: Martin told the circuit court "it was no longer necessary for [it] to comply with this court's mandates" in a filing below, but on appeal he complained "that the circuit court failed to comply with our mandate." Id. at 9.  The court invoked the general rule: "a party is bound by his or her pleadings and the allegations therein and cannot maintain an inconsistent position on appeal." Id.

Thank you for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of February 8, 2026

 

This was a busy week at 625 Marshall Street.  The Arkansas Supreme Court issued one opinion on Wednesday, five others on Thursday's docket, and a seventh opinion on Thursday not appearing on the docket.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals issued twenty opinions on Thursday.  We'll note a couple of those latter opinions here.

Jackson argued that an Arkansas Code section and a local ordinance were unconstitutional in Jackson v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 91.  Together, the Code section and ordinance imposed a "pay for stay" system for persons held in the municipal jail.  These costs were imposed in a Sentencing Order; Jackson moved for post-trial relief from these costs; and in an Amended Sentencing Order, the trial court omitted the "pay for stay" costs.

The Court of Appeals found that Jackson's constitutional challenge on appeal was moot.  Because the Amended Sentencing Order dropped the costs, any decision by the court on appeal would have no practical legal effect upon Jackson.  He argued that the exception for matters capable of repetition and evading review applied.  Jackson did not explain how future imposition of these costs would evade review, so the exception was not applied.

Thompson v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 96, discusses the specificity required to preserve a sufficiency argument for appeal.  " A motion for directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.  Without a circuit court's ruling on a specific motion, there is nothing for this court to review." Id. at 7 (footnotes omitted).  In this case, "[a] motion merely stating that the evidence is insufficient does not preserve for appeal issues relating to a specific deficiency, such as insufficient proof on the elements of the offense." Id. at 7-8 (footnote omitted).  Thus, the trial-level argument that the State didn't meet its burden of proof on Thompson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt did not preserve an argument as to a specific element of the crime.

Thank you for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of February 1, 2026

 

Twenty opinions appear on the Arkansas Court of Appeals' February 4, 2026, docket; two opinions and several per curiam orders appear on the Arkansas Supreme Court's docket for the following day.  We'll note three opinions and one per curiam order in this post.

The Arkansas Supreme Court settled on a standard of review for a first-of-its-kind appeal in Merrell v. State, 2026 Ark. 15.  This case involves an extended-juvenile-jurisdiction ("EJJ") offender; the trial court determined that Merrell deserved sentencing as an adult, and imposed a life sentence.  Merrell appealed.

Noting that "this is the first appeal from the imposition of an adult sentence on an EJJ offender" addressing the merits, the court had to "first determine the proper standard of review...." Id. at 16.  Arkansas Code imposes a preponderance of the evidence burden of proof on the State to prove at trial that an EJJ defendant's adult sentence was proper; in other appeals involving this burden of proof, the court "applied the clearly-erroneous standard of review." Id.  "Appeals from an EJJ designation are also reviewed under the clear error standard." Id.  The court determined to apply that same standard of review here: "we will not reverse the circuit court's order imposing an adult sentence on Merrell unless it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence." Id.

An unfortunate use of artificial intelligence in a brief is the subject of a per curiam order issued in Arkansas Department of Human Services v. Ward, 2026 Ark. 17.  On December 11, 2025, the court ordered an attorney to respond to concerns about citations in a brief that could not be located.  To her great credit, the attorney admitted error and took other steps, including self-reporting to the Office of Professional Conduct.  The court noted her response and imposed a reprimand.  This order is required reading if you make use of AI in your pleadings.

Turning to the Court of Appeals, in McBride v. McBride, 2026 Ark. App. 58, the court reminded attorneys about the requirements for a brief's Statement of the Case.

The “Statement of the Case” in an appellant’s brief is required by Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)6) to “identify and discuss all material factual and procedural information” essential to understand and decide the issues on appeal. Here, appellant’s “Statement of the Case” is a mere half page; it contains procedural dates but is woefully inadequate regarding the parties’ testimony and other material evidence. Appellee’s brief supplements the facts somewhat. In this instance, we will not require appellant to rebrief her appeal. We caution all attorneys, however, to be mindful of and compliant with the entirety of Rule 4-2 regarding the contents of electronic briefs.

McBride, 2026 Ark. App. 58, at 1 n.1.

Long v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 62, explores the trial-level detail required to preserve an argument for appeal.  "An appellant must raise an issue in the circuit court and support it with sufficient argument and legal authority, if there is any, to preserve it for appeal." Id. at 3.  When he argued separation of powers at trial, Long "did not cite any provision of the Arkansas Constitution, any standard of constitutional review, or any case law or secondary authority to support his argument." Id. at 4.  Because Long did not provide the trial court with a developed argument, the court did not address it on appeal.

Thank you for reading.