The 128th Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Bar Association

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court's single decision issued yesterday addresses a common preservation issue, and the single per curiam opinion also issued yesterday addressed a matter related to admission to the Bar.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not issue a docket this week.  There's nothing to discuss on that front.

The 128th Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Bar Association concluded today.  If you are an Arkansas attorney, you owe it to yourself to attend at least one of these.  I missed this afternoon's session with the former Solicitor General of Oklahoma, but I did attend other programs related to appellate practice.

On June 10, 2026, two Court of Appeals judges and a circuit judge presented "Life after Nalley."  I'm going to paraphrase one appellate judge's comments.  Just like attorneys might struggle with what the Court of Appeals says, that court struggles with what the Arkansas Supreme Court says.  The Court of Appeals is really constrained by the record, arguments of parties, and standards of review.  The court sees problems with the use of inconsistent terms to describe the same matter, such as in custody orders.

His most interesting comment - to me - is that all opinions are circulated to all 12 judges before they are released, not just to the 3 on the panel signing the opinion, so that all 12 judges have the opportunity to offer comments and ask questions about the proposed opinion.  That deserves thinking through: does this suggest anything about how we craft our arguments for this court?

After the Nalley program, Tory H. Lewis presented "Appellate Update: The Latest and Greatest in Family Law Appeals."  Ms. Lewis did an excellent job, but since she focused on substantive family law topics, I won't summarize her presentation here.

Today, June 12, 2026, the Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court gave the annual State of the Judiciary speech.  She highlighted the traveling court program, JLAP's assistance programs, and the preparation of a manual for pro se appellate litigants.  All of these matters reflect the court's ongoing efforts to retain the public's trust and confidence.

One of the other presenters, Casey Mock, offered highly interesting presentations on technology.  A common concern is the effect of social media, etc., on our ability to think clearly.  This photo captures one of Mr. Mock's points:

All-in-all, a great Annual Meeting.

Have a great weekend.

Rule changes and proposals of interest to appellate lawyers

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not hand down a docket this week.  Summer break is in process for that court.

The Arkansas Supreme Court did hand down one opinion, but it did not contain any appellate practice or procedural issues of interest here.   There were a number of per curiam opinions issued addressing rules changes, adopted and proposed.  Two of these opinions merit notice in this post.

One per curiam opinion, at 2026 Ark. 107, adopted changes to Rules 3(f), 4(a), and 6(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure - Civil.  Rule 3(f)'s amendment deletes the requirement for service of a notice of appeal or cross-appeal "by any form of mail which requires a signed receipt."  This simply isn't necessary with electronic filing.  Rule 4(a) makes a related change: the time limit for filing a notice of cross-appeal now begins with filing of the notice of appeal, not receipt of it.  Rule 6(b)'s change is similar: the appellee's designation of additional parts of the record on appeal must be made within ten days after filing of the notice of appeal, not its receipt.

A second per curiam, at 2026 Ark. 111, proposes changes to Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 4(a).  The mere mention of Rule 54(b) should be enough to get your attention.

To put this second per curiam into context, recall the case of Tate v. Phillips County, 2026 Ark. App. 141, summarized here on February 22, 2026.  In Tate, the Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to the improper placement of a Rule 54(b) certificate.  The rule required that the certificate "shall appear immediately after the court's signature on the judgment," but the certificate in Tate was signed and entered as a "stand-alone" document.

The proposed change to Rule 54(b) addresses that issue.  If adopted, the certificate "may be attached to the judgment or filed separately...."  The proposed Reporter's Note states that the trial "[c]ourt and the parties remain free to make it part of the judgment document."

The proposal also provides a method for seeking a certificate after the judgment is entered.  The party seeking a certificate must file a motion within fourteen days after entry of the judgment; if that motion is not granted within thirty days after the motion's filing date, it is deemed denied.  No certificate may be entered more than forty-five days after the judgment or more than thirty days after the motion's filing, whichever is later.

What does that all do to the filing deadline for the notice of appeal?  The proposed change to Rule 4(a) addresses this.  If adopted, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days from entry of the judgment appealed or entry of the Rule 54(b) certificate.  The deadline for filing a notice of cross-appeal is also addressed.

You really should read this second per curiam, including the proposed Reporter's Notes.  Comments on the proposal can be made to the Clerk of the Courts until August 1, 2026.

The Arkansas Bar Association's Annual Meeting is next week.  Stay tuned - there may be something to report from there.

Thank you for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of May 24, 2026

 

Each of our appellate courts handed down one decision this week.  The Arkansas Supreme Court also issued two per curiam orders.  Otherwise, the Arkansas Court of Appeals did not issue any orders resolving motions; neither court's docket listed any motions or cases submitted for decision.

These abbreviated dockets may be because this is a short, holiday week.  Or, they may further signal that summer break is near.

In any event, neither opinion issued this week contains anything of interest to this blog - there are no appellate practice or process tips to ponder.

My intent is to wade through the Court of Appeals decisions issued last week, but that will take a bit.  Check back here next week - maybe we'll know something more about summer break's timing, or have other opinions to note.

Have a great weekend!