Settlement immediately prior to oral argument - one panel's reaction

 

You are in the courtroom to present oral argument.  Thirty minutes prior to the start of the court's session, you learn that the parties have settled their dispute.  What would you do?  How would you address this development to the appellate court?

That happened this morning before a panel of the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  The case is Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. v. State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin, Attorney General, CV-24-592.

When the case was called, Meta's attorney informed the panel that thirty minutes prior to argument he was notified that the parties had settled.  He offered to continue with or forego argument, as the court wished.  The panel asked the State for its reaction, but that attorney did not come to the podium and I could not make out her response.

The panel's response was, essentially: "It's your case.  How would you like to proceed?"  Meta's attorney opted to present argument.  Interestingly, the panel did not ask a single question of either attorney.

I've not seen this happen before, although I'm sure this was not the first time a case settled immediately prior to argument or submission for decision.  It might be interesting to see how this case unfolds.

Have a good day.

Opinion highlights for the week of August 16, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down eleven opinions yesterday.  The Arkansas Supreme Court did not post a syllabus this morning.  We'll ease back into a routine by looking at a couple of those Court of Appeals opinions.

In King v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 358, King appealed convictions for drug and paraphernalia possession.  She objected to admission of certified copies of two prior convictions - apparently on relevance grounds - but the trial court ruled that she opened the door for the documents' admission.

On appeal, King argued that the convictions were improperly admitted for the purpose of proving her guilt.  The Court of Appeals determined that King's argument was not preserved for appeal.  "Parties cannot change the grounds for an objection on appeal but are bound by the scope and nature of their objections as presented at trial." Id. at 4.  King did not raise her appellate arguments below, much less obtain a ruling on them, so they were not preserved for review.

Moore v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2026 Ark. App. 363, is a child custody case.  Moore appealed an award of child custody to the mother, not him.  One of his arguments was that "reunification with a fit parent" is not a permanency goal under the Juvenile Code, but pursuing that goal caused the trial court to improperly focus on reunification with the child's mother.

The Court of Appeals found that this argument was not preserved for appeal.  Moore specifically appealed the November 10, 2025 order determining custody, but relevant findings were made in an earlier order.  Thus, "Moore failed to preserve that argument for appellate review because he did not challenge the prior order below or designate the relevant review hearing in his notice of appeal." Id. at 11.  The Court of Appeals cited Velazquez v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 168, at 5, in support of that statement.

Thank you for reading.

Proposed amendments to Fed. R. App. P. 25 (filing and service)

 

On August 14, 2026, the various federal Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Rules published proposed amendments to their respective rules.  These rules are open for public comment through February 15, 2027.

Rule 25 is the only Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure subject to proposed amendments.  That rule generally addresses filing and service of papers.

The proposed amendments address an unrepresented litigant's ability to file electronically.  Under the amendments, the default position would permit such a litigant access to a court's electronic filing system.  A court could adopt a local rule disallowing such access, but that court would need to provide alternative electronic means for filing and for receiving notice of court filings and orders.

These amendments change the current default position: "Under the current national rules, self-represented litigants generally must file non-electronically unless authorized to file electronically by court order or local rule."

The amendments also reduce the need for paper service on persons who receive notice of case activity through a court's electronic filing system.

If you would like to review Rule 25's proposed amendments and supporting commentary, you can find those items here: Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment

These amendments, coupled with the Arkansas Supreme Court's recent publication of a Non-Lawyer's Guide to Arkansas Appeals, reflect that concerns over pro se or unrepresented litigant filings affect appellate courts, too.