Proposed amendments to three rules of appellate procedure

 A per curiam opinion of the Arkansas Supreme Court, delivered January 29, 2026, notes proposed amendments to three of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure - Civil.  A copy of the per curiam opinion can be found at this link: https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/524121/1/document.do

The first proposed change involves Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(f).  The proposal eliminates the requirement that notices of appeal or cross-appeal be served "by any form of mail which requires a signed receipt."  The requirement is no longer necessary in the age of electronic filing.

The second proposed change relates to the first.  If adopted, Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 4(a) will require that a notice of cross appeal will be required ten days after the notice of appeal is filed, not ten days after receipt.

The final proposed change is similar to the second and also relates to the first.  The proposed new Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 6 will require an appellee to file a designation of other parts of the record to be included on appeal within ten days after the notice of appeal is filed, not ten days after receipt.

Comments on these proposals are due on or before April 1, 2026.

Opinion highlights for the week of January 25, 2026

 

Despite the weather, our appellate courts handed down decisions this week.  Ten opinions appear on the Court of Appeals' January 28, 2026, docket; two opinions were issued by the Supreme Court the next day.

Two opinions involve what seems to be a rarity: successful "sufficiency of the evidence" arguments.  These are fact-intensive, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on them here; you should read these opinions if you are interested in winning "sufficiency" arguments.  In Parris v. State, 2026 Ark. 5, the Supreme Court reversed a theft by receiving conviction for lack of substantial evidence: the conviction was based upon inadmissible hearsay about the gun having been stolen.

And in Keeton v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 53, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed an obstructing governmental operations conviction, where the basis for the State's case was correct advice the defendant gave her daughter.  The defendant had no interaction with officers attempting to serve a warrant upon her daughter; she merely told her daughter on the phone that she did not have to answer the door.  The evidence was thus insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction in Caldwell v. Arkansas Racing Commission, 2026 Ark. App. 50.  Caldwell appealed an unfavorable Commission decision, but he submitted an untimely petition for review.  The circuit court noted that untimeliness but also addressed the merits in a decision favoring the Commission.  Caldwell then appealed that circuit court decision.  The Court of Appeals found that the circuit court did not err when it found the petition for review to be untimely.

[T]he petition for judicial review was untimely filed in circuit court. This means that court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the additional arguments Caldwell raised. So, too, we lack jurisdiction beyond the task of deciding the threshold question of whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the Commission’s decision; as we have explained, it did not, so the Commission’s decision is affirmed.

Id. at 8.

Finally, in Taylor v. Independence County, 2026 Ark. App. 54, the Arkansas Court of Appeals acknowledged that Taylor could raise the Independence County Court's jurisdiction for the first time on appeal.  Apparently the county court issued an order despite the absence of any judicial proceeding invoking the county court's jurisdiction.

The Arkansas Supreme Court also issued a number of per curiam orders, including one noting proposed changes to rules of appellate procedure.  If those proposals are worth reporting here, I will do so by a separate post.

Thank you for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of January 18, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down fifteen opinions yesterday, January 21, 2026; the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down one opinion today.  We will note that Supreme Court opinion and two of the Court of Appeals opinions.

In Rolfe v. State, 2026 Ark. 4, Rolfe appealed the denial of his motion to transfer his case to the circuit court's juvenile division.  His first argument on appeal challenged the constitutionality of the Code section governing juvenile transfers.  Rolfe admitted not raising this constitutional challenge below.

The Supreme Court declined to hear Rolfe's challenge on appeal.  The court noted the "fundamental principle of criminal appellate review that constitutional arguments must be raised at the first opportunity and ruled upon by the circuit court to be preserved for appeal." Id. at 5-6.

Nor did the court accept Rolfe's attempt to "recast his argument as one of subject-matter jurisdiction to save his constitutional claim from glaring procedural difficulties." Id. at 6.  When the State filed a proper information charging Rolfe, the circuit court properly assumed jurisdiction.  "Whether the case should proceed in the criminal or juvenile division is a question of how that jurisdiction is exercised—not whether it exists. That is not a subject-matter-jurisdiction defect that may be raised at any time." Id. at 6.

Turning to the Court of Appeals, Little Rock Plastic Surgery v. Director, 2026 Ark. App. 43, turned on an issue discussed last week.  LRPS's business manager signed a petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals.  The court noted the requirement that corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys.

In the instant case, [the petition's signer] is a business manager, not an attorney, and may not represent LRPS. Invoking the process of a court of law constitutes the practice of law.  Because [the signer] was practicing law when she signed the petition, the petition is null and void. As a result, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal.

Id. at 2 (citation omitted).

Finally, in Greene v. Clark, 2026 Ark. App. 35, the Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal as moot.  While Greene's appeal of a guardianship order was pending, the circuit court entered an order terminating the guardianship.  The Court of Appeals observed that a "case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then-existing legal controversy." Id. at 2.  Nor did the two exceptions to the mootness doctrine - issues capable of repetition that evade review and issues that raise public interest considerations - apply here.  So, rather than issue an advisory opinion, the appeal was dismissed as moot.

Thanks, as always, for reading.