Several interesting decisions were handed down this week. The Arkansas Court of Appeals issued 26 opinions on Wednesday, October 7, 2026; the Arkansas Supreme Court issued 5 opinions on the merits on Thursday, October 8, 2026. We'll note a couple of Supreme Court opinions and three from the Court of Appeals.
A justice on the Arkansas Supreme Court explained why she would not recuse, despite a motion that she do so, in Old Dominion Freight Line v. McMillion, 2026 Ark. 145. The opinion considers a judge's past relationship with an attorney appearing in the appeal. I won't discuss the facts here, but this opinion is worth your time to understand how such recusal requests are addressed.
In Spaar v. State, 2026 Ark. 142, Spaar challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. The majority opinion found that his directed verdict motions below did not challenge specific elements of the offenses, so his challenge to specific elements on appeal were not preserved - "that alone is grounds for denying his claims." Id. at 3. But then, the majority proceeded to address the merits of Spaar's claims.
The concurring opinion agreed that Spaar did not preserve his sufficiency challenges, but observed that the majority should have stopped there.
Once that conclusion resolves the appeal, there is no reason to decide whether Spaar’s claims would also fail on the merits. Doing so provides an answer to a question we need not decide (i.e., an advisory opinion). Judicial restraint counsels that we stop when our work is done.
Id. at 8.
Turning to the Court of Appeals decisions, Hermes v. Beene, 2026 Ark. App. 468, involved an order finding the Hermes in contempt of a preliminary injunction. They did not appeal the injunction entered February 21, 2025; rather, they appealed the contempt order entered June 18, 2025. Their timely notice of appeal designated the contempt order as the order appealed from.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals concluded that the Hermes' appeal properly involved the contempt order, not the original injunction - the latter order was not timely appealed and was not designated in the notice of appeal. Thus, two of their points on appeal, to the extent they sought review of the injunction, were not properly before the court.
Little Rock School District v. Robinson, 2026 Ark. App. 472, contains a reminder that, as with issues or arguments raised for the first time in reply briefs, issues raised for the first time in oral argument will not be considered on appeal. Id. at 6 n.5.
Finally, Tolbert v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2026 Ark. App. 477, touches on the mythical Wicks exceptions. This is a termination of parental rights case. Tolbert argued that the trial court failed to ensure that she received reasonable accommodations under the ADA. But this argument was not raised below, much less ruled on by the trial court. Tolbert argued that it should be considered under the third Wicks exception (involving the trial court's duty to intervene to correct serious errors). But past precedent rejected this argument, so Tolber's argument was not preserved for appeal.
Thank you for reading.
