Opinion highlights for the week of October 25, 2026

 

This was a busy week at the Justice Building.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down twenty-four opinions on October 28, 2026.  The next day, the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down three opinions.  We'll comment on two Supreme Court opinions (including a dissent from the denial of review) and two Court of Appeals opinions.

Wesley v. State, 2026 Ark. 159, involves an appeal from a capital murder conviction.  Wesley made two separate arguments, both in motions in limine and for directed verdict.  In response to the motion in limine and the initial directed verdict motion, the trial court ruled on Wesley's hearsay argument but did not address his confrontation argument.  When Wesley renewed his motion for directed verdict at the close of the evidence, the trial court responded with a general denial - neither argument was specifically addressed.

The Supreme Court held that both issues were preserved for appeal.  The court noted two prior opinions denying review - in both cases, the trial court specifically ruled on one argument but not the other, so the second argument was not preserved.  But this case was different:

... Wesley did obtain a general denial of his entire motion, which included his confrontation-clause objection, when he renewed his motion at the close of all evidence. For purposes of this appeal, we conclude that such a ruling preserved Wesley’s confrontation-clause claim, and we will address it on the merits.

Id. at 5.

One justice, joined by another, dissented from the denial of review in Rutland v. Steward, 2026 Ark. 161.  The writing justice observed that "[c]iting its own precedent, the court of appeals departs from ours." Id.  "It's a fundamental principle of law that the court of appeals cannot overrule or ignore our precedent.  But by denying this petition, the majority allows just that." Id.  Apparently, the petition for review addressed whether a prejudice showing is necessary before dismissing an appeal under Ark. R. App. P.-Civil 3(e).

Turning to the Court of Appeals, BFT Rental v. City of Fayetteville, 2026 Ark. App. 499 denied review of an issue raised for the first time below in a motion for a new trial.  The court is generally "precluded from reaching issues on appeal that are first raised in a motion for new trial." Id. at 5.  Such an objection below is not timely: "[a] party may not wait for the outcome of the case before deciding to bring an error to the court's attention." Id.

Finally, Bloodman v. Bill Fitts Auto, 2026 Ark. App. 519, involves application of an earlier mandate.  In an earlier opinion in this case, the Court of Appeals ruled that a district court never had jurisdiction over the case, so that its orders - and writs of garnishment - were void.  Bloodman had appealed the district court's actions to circuit court, prior to that earlier opinion; now, after that first appellate opinion, Fitts Auto moved to dismiss the case, which the circuit court granted.

The question on this second appeal was "whether the circuit court exceeded its jurisdiction on remand when it granted Bill Fitts Auto's Rule 41(a) motion to dismiss." Bloodman, 2026 Ark. App. 519, at 3.  The mandate rule denies lower courts the authority to "vary the appellate court's mandate" or to "meddle with it, other than to settle what has been remanded." Id. at 4.  But by not vacating the writs, dismissing Bloodman's district court appeal, or dismissing in Bloodman's favor, the trial court did not follow the mandate.  "Because the circuit court acted outside its jurisdiction when it did not follow the mandate, its order granting Bill Fitts Auto's motion to dismiss is void." Id. at 5.

Thank you for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of October 18, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals issued eleven opinions on October 21, 2026.  The Arkansas Supreme Court issued one opinion the next day.  We'll note three of those Court of Appeals decisions here.

Watkins v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 492, involved two cases consolidated for review on appeal.  Watkins' counsel filed a "no merit" brief; the Court of Appeals denied his motion to withdraw and ordered rebriefing in one case, but dismissed the other for lack of jurisdiction.  The basis for that dismissal, along with the suggested remedy, is noteworthy here.

Watkins' notice of appeal identified both cases by case number, but was only filed in one case, 26CR-18-630.  No timely notice of appeal was filed in the other case, 26CR-19-252 ("252").  An amended notice of appeal was subsequently filed in both cases, past the thirty day limit; no request for a belated appeal was ever filed in 252.

The Court of Appeals dismissed 252 for lack of jurisdiction.

Rule 2(a)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Criminal provides that a notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty days from the entry of the judgment or uniform sentencing order. If the defendant fails to file a timely notice of appeal, this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the matter. Because the notice of appeal in 26CR-19-252 was untimely, we lack jurisdiction to entertain the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of 26CR-19-252 without prejudice.

Watkins, 2026 Ark. App. 492, at 3 (citation omitted).  In an appended footnote, the court cautioned "counsel that a motion for belated appeal must be filed within eighteen months of the entry of the judgment appealed from." Id. at n.2.

Alexander v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 496, pondered whether the language in a notice of appeal was broad enough to include the deemed denial of a motion for a new trial.  Alexander's notice of appeal stated that "the motion for new trial was deemed denied because 30 days had elapsed without action...."  This language compared favorably with similar language in an earlier case, McBride v. State, and in that case the Court of Appeals decided it had jurisdiction.

 

 [In McBride] [w]e explained that “[b]ecause the motion was deemed denied, there was no document actually entered that could be identified in the notice of appeal.” We acknowledged in McBride, and we will do so again here, that while “the better practice is to clearly identify each ruling a party seeks to appeal,” Alexander’s notice was timely and adequate such that we are able to determine which decisions of the circuit court Alexander challenges.

Alexander, 2026 Ark. App. 496, at 7 (citations omitted).

Finally, the Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal in SCA Management, LLC v. Donovan, 2026 Ark. App. 494, for lack of a final order.  The trial court granted SCA's motion for summary judgment on August 16, 2024, but set that order aside on November 14, 2024.  SCA appealed the latter order.

The Court of Appeals observed that the August 16 order was final, but it was not on appeal - the November 14 order setting aside the earlier order was on appeal.  Orders denying a motion for summary judgment are not appealable, and "a circuit court's order setting aside its prior order of summary judgment within ninety days is not an appealable order because it is not a final order dismissing the parties from the action." Id. at 5.  The November 14 order merely placed the parties back in their respective positions prior to the grant of summary judgment - it did not conclude anyone's rights.  The appeal was dismissed without prejudice.

I'll try to catch up following my time away.  Thank you for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of October 11, 2026 - and a programming note

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not issue a syllabus this week, but the Arkansas Supreme Court did.  That Supreme Court syllabus notes six decisions released today, all of which involve pro se appellants.  I generally don't note such decisions here, so this will be a very short post.

There is one programming note: I will be out of pocket for the remainder of the month.  This blog will resume opinion highlights when I return.

Enjoy our impending fall weather.