Opinion highlights for the week of April 12, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down ten signed opinions on April 15, 2026.  The next day, the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down five opinions.  There are a couple of items outside of those lists that are worth noting this week, in addition to one of the opinions.

In Hughes v. Bright, the Supreme Court dismissed an appeal because review was improvidently granted.  Three justices dissented in an opinion found at 2026 Ark. 69.  The dissent notes errors in the Court of Appeals' decision previously under review, including error in affirming a trial court conclusion and misapplication of a particular doctrine.  The opinion claims that "[t]he court of appeals has a fundamental misunderstanding of the difference between factual allegations and legal conclusions." Id. at 3.  To the dissenters, "this all ties into a broader problem that has plagued circuit courts and the court of appeals for years: an unwillingness to effectuate the statutory preference for joint custody." Id.

The Court of Appeals' per curiam opinion in Ballegeer v. Ballegeer, 2026 Ark. App. 240, addresses a trial court's authority to enforce its orders while an appeal is pending.  The "mere filing of a notice of appeal" does not deprive a circuit court of that authority, nor does the lodging of the record.  "The purpose of a supersedeas bond is to preserve the status quo during the pendency of an appeal; absent such a bond or a properly granted stay, there is nothing preventing the circuit court from proceeding to enforce its judgment." Id. at 1.  In this case, the appellant did not request a stay or file a supersedeas bond, so "the circuit court retains full authority to enforce its order notwithstanding the pending appeal." Id. at 1-2.

In Mata v. Reyes, 2026 Ark. App. 229, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded a case for specific written findings.  This was a child custody matter; joint custody was not ordered by the trial court.  The statutory presumption favoring joint custody could be rebutted, but the trial court had to enter findings in support of a decision that the presumption was rebutted.  Those findings were not in the trial court's order.

Without the required written findings, we have no way to reliably determine whether the court properly analyzed the facts under the statute.  Due to the statute’s requirement for specific written findings, we cannot presume that the circuit court made such findings as were necessary to support its decision.  Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the circuit court to make the necessary findings concerning whether the joint custody presumption has been rebutted.

Id. at 3 (citations omitted).

Thank you for following along.

Opinion highlights for the week of April 5, 2026

This was a relatively light week, in terms of issued decisions.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals issued eleven decisions on April 8, 2026.  Two decisions appeared on the Arkansas Supreme Court's docket issued the next day.  We'll note two of those Court of Appeals decisions - see if you can spot a theme!

In Golden v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 226, the Court of Appeals affirmed, but noted problems with Golden's statement of the case and the facts.  The court cited Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) and quoted the requirements for concise statements without argument and discussing all material facts and procedural information contained in the record.

Here, the statement of the case consists of eight short sentences basically stating that appellant was charged, tried, and convicted. Clearly, this is woefully deficient and ordinarily merits rebriefing. However, Rule 4-2(b) allows an appellee’s brief to supplement the statement of the case if the appellee believes it to be insufficient, which the State did in this case.

Golden, 2026 Ark. App. 226, at 1 n.1.  Since the State saved the day, the court did not order rebriefing "this time because it is not in the interest of judicial economy to do so." Id. (emphasis in original).

Another footnote in Golden finds that an argument was preserved, despite the State's insistence to the contrary.

 

The State argues that appellant’s argument is not preserved because appellant mistakenly references only the motion for continuance filed by [a private attorney attempting to appear] and not the motion filed and argued by appellant’s counsel. Because appellant’s counsel essentially adopted the motion for continuance filed by [the private attorney] and because both motions argued that a continuance was needed to allow appellant to proceed with private counsel, we address appellant’s arguments on appeal.

Id. at 11 n.2.

Foster v. Sutton, 2026 Ark. App. 224, also addressed a deficient statement of the case and the facts.  A footnote references Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6) and quotes the requirements to discuss all material facts and procedural information, and to cite to pages in the record where those items can be found.  "Terry's statement of the case does none of these things" but the court did not order rebriefing "because the appellees' brief supplies the missing information in the missing format." Foster, 2026 Ark. App. 224, at 6-7 n.1.  The court also concluded that certain arguments were not preserved for appeal because they "were neither presented to nor ruled on by the circuit court." Id. at 7.

Thanks for reading.

An interesting request for relief on appeal: invited amici

 

Readers may be familiar with ongoing litigation involving the Arkansas Board of Corrections.  Without getting too far into the weeds, the composition of the Board has changed, and the Board's new majority no longer wishes to make the same arguments advanced by the former majority.

One of the cases involved is on appeal.  There is a trial court decision favorable to the Board, but the parties to the appeal want the Arkansas Supreme Court to reverse the trial court and remand the matter so that it may be dismissed in light of a settlement.

Here's where appellate practitioners might be interested, regardless of their views about the underlying politics.

A former Board member joined with a current Board member to seek relief from the Supreme Court.  They asked to intervene to defend the trial court decision.  But in the alternative, they asked the Supreme Court to appoint an attorney to defend the trial court decision on appeal, since the new Board is disinterested in doing so.

This alternative relief is based on U.S. Supreme Court practice.  The notion is that when a decision on appeal is "orphaned" - that is, a party no longer wishes to defend it - the Supreme Court will appoint an attorney - "invited amici" - to defend the decision.  The Court benefits from full briefing and argument provided by the appointed attorney.

It will be interesting to see how the Arkansas Supreme Court addresses this matter.  I am not aware of an "invited amici" ever being appointed here, but it could have happened.

If you want to review the pleadings and keep up with this case's disposition, you can find the case on the Arkansas Judiciary website, here: https://arcourts.gov/  Search the court records tab for the docket number, CV-25-742.

And if you would like to know more about "invited amici" practice at the U.S. Supreme Court, here's a Cornell Law Review article on the topic: https://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol101/iss6/3/

Enjoy - and stay tuned!