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!

Summer break clues - and no invited amicus, yet

 

The Court of Appeals' May 20, 2026, docket offers at least two clues that summer break is near: (1) there are forty-five decisions listed, an unusually high number only seen near the end of a term; and (2) no new cases were submitted for decision.

It will take me a bit to work through these.  If summer break is upon us, please check back here for opinion highlights - surely there's something of interest to this blog in that many decisions.

The Supreme Court did issue a docket yesterday, but no decisions were announced.  Three cases were submitted for decision.  In the past, summer break did not always commence at the same time for our two appellate courts.

Remember my April 7, 2026, post about a request for the Supreme Court to appoint an invited amicus for Sanders v. Arkansas Board of Corrections, CV-25-742?  The argument was that no party wanted to defend the trial court's decision below, so, following United States Supreme Court practice, our Supreme Court should appoint someone to defend that decision.  (See that April 7, 2026, post for more background.)

Yesterday, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the trial court to "consider" a dispositive joint motion.  In that context, the Supreme Court also "dismissed" two motions to appoint an invited amicus.

It is interesting to me that the court did not deny the motions - they were merely dismissed.  What does this mean in terms of the law of the case?  Could an invited amicus be requested at the trial court level upon remand, and again if another appeal ensues?  Stay tuned!

Enjoy your Memorial Day weekend.