Opinion highlights for the week of August 16, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down eleven opinions yesterday.  The Arkansas Supreme Court did not post a syllabus this morning.  We'll ease back into a routine by looking at a couple of those Court of Appeals opinions.

In King v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 358, King appealed convictions for drug and paraphernalia possession.  She objected to admission of certified copies of two prior convictions - apparently on relevance grounds - but the trial court ruled that she opened the door for the documents' admission.

On appeal, King argued that the convictions were improperly admitted for the purpose of proving her guilt.  The Court of Appeals determined that King's argument was not preserved for appeal.  "Parties cannot change the grounds for an objection on appeal but are bound by the scope and nature of their objections as presented at trial." Id. at 4.  King did not raise her appellate arguments below, much less obtain a ruling on them, so they were not preserved for review.

Moore v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2026 Ark. App. 363, is a child custody case.  Moore appealed an award of child custody to the mother, not him.  One of his arguments was that "reunification with a fit parent" is not a permanency goal under the Juvenile Code, but pursuing that goal caused the trial court to improperly focus on reunification with the child's mother.

The Court of Appeals found that this argument was not preserved for appeal.  Moore specifically appealed the November 10, 2025 order determining custody, but relevant findings were made in an earlier order.  Thus, "Moore failed to preserve that argument for appellate review because he did not challenge the prior order below or designate the relevant review hearing in his notice of appeal." Id. at 11.  The Court of Appeals cited Velazquez v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 168, at 5, in support of that statement.

Thank you for reading.

Proposed amendments to Fed. R. App. P. 25 (filing and service)

 

On August 14, 2026, the various federal Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Rules published proposed amendments to their respective rules.  These rules are open for public comment through February 15, 2027.

Rule 25 is the only Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure subject to proposed amendments.  That rule generally addresses filing and service of papers.

The proposed amendments address an unrepresented litigant's ability to file electronically.  Under the amendments, the default position would permit such a litigant access to a court's electronic filing system.  A court could adopt a local rule disallowing such access, but that court would need to provide alternative electronic means for filing and for receiving notice of court filings and orders.

These amendments change the current default position: "Under the current national rules, self-represented litigants generally must file non-electronically unless authorized to file electronically by court order or local rule."

The amendments also reduce the need for paper service on persons who receive notice of case activity through a court's electronic filing system.

If you would like to review Rule 25's proposed amendments and supporting commentary, you can find those items here: Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment

These amendments, coupled with the Arkansas Supreme Court's recent publication of a Non-Lawyer's Guide to Arkansas Appeals, reflect that concerns over pro se or unrepresented litigant filings affect appellate courts, too.

Opinion highlights for the week of August 9, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals' August 12, 2026, syllabus runs to sixteen pages.  Most of the entries are per curiam orders addressing motions, fee petitions, and the like.  No opinions were handed down, but additional cases and motions are listed as submitted for decision.

The Arkansas Supreme Court did not post a syllabus this morning.

So, really, there are no opinions to highlight this week - but stay tuned.

There is an interesting oral argument on the horizon.  On August 26, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., the Court of Appeals will hear argument in CV-24-592, an appeal pitting Meta Platforms and others against the Attorney General's office.  An attorney from Covington & Burling with extensive appellate experience will argue for Meta Platforms.  This might be worth watching online.

Thank you for reading.