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.

Opinion highlights for the week of October 4, 2026

 

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.