Opinion highlights for the week of January 26, 2025

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court did not hand down any decisions this week.  The Court of Appeals handed down nineteen signed decisions.  I'll comment on three of those decisions; two involve deficient statements of the case and the facts.

Watson v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 52, was remanded to settle and supplement the record.  Although appellant's notice of appeal designated the trial transcript as part of the record on appeal, that transcript was not part of the record submitted.  Understandably, the appellant cited to pages in the missing record in his argument.  Citing Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 6(e), made applicable to criminal appeals by Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 4(a), the court noted its authority to direct the correction of a record omitting anything material to either party and, if needed, to order that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted.

Davison v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2025 Ark. App. 49, is one of the two cases involving a deficient statement.  A motion to withdraw and a no-merit brief were filed in this termination of parental rights case.  That motion was denied, and the court ordered rebriefing.  Citing Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6), the court observed that "the statement of the case consists of only a brief recitation of the dates of the hearings and orders without any reference to the specific facts of the case." Davison, 2025 Ark. App. 49, at 3.  Although appellants appealed from a permanency planning order, "the statement of the case  lacks any discussion of what occurred at both the permanency-planning hearing (PPH) and the termination hearing." Id.  The brief failed to address all but two adverse rulings, and those two were "only mentioned generically." Id.

Wisely v. Coiner, 2025 Ark. App. 53, involved a different issue with a statement of the case.  Again citing Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6), the court ordered rebriefing in this probate appeal because appellant "has injected arguments and conclusory declarations throughout the statement." Wisely, 2025 Ark. App. 53, at 1.  The court quoted a number of statements that it considered conclusory, argumentative, or nonfactual, and concluded: "Because the statement of the case is rife with argument, it violates our rules." Id. at 2.  The court expected "a compliant statement of the case and factual information necessary to understand the case and decide the issues on appeal." Id.

National Legal Aid & Defender Training, May 6-9, 2025

A quick note about an appellate training opportunity: the National Legal Aid & Defender Association will conduct an Appellate Defender Training program May 6-9, 2025.  The program will be held in Worcester, Massachusetts.

My understanding is that participants are encouraged to bring a pending criminal appeal to work through as the program progresses.  While the focus is on criminal appeals, I suspect many of the lessons imparted might be useful in bringing any appeal.

If you would like to know more, see here: https://www.nlada.org/appellate-defender-training-east-coast  As of this post, registration is not yet open, but watch that site if you are interested - these programs fill up fast.

And if you go, look for me - I intend to register for this one!

Opinion highlights for the week of January 19, 2025

Twelve signed decisions appear on the Arkansas Court of Appeals' docket from last Wednesday; I'll note one of them.  In Garcia v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2025 Ark. App. 33, the court considered appellant's argument that the evidence was insufficient to support a finding of dependency-neglect.  The court affirmed.  It concluded the opinion with this admonition:

We note that the arguments made by appellant are nothing more than requests that we reweigh the evidence in her favor, which we will not do.  The circuit court's weighing the evidence differently tha[n] appellant wanted it to be weighed is not reversible error.  We do not act as a super fact-finder nor do we second guess the circuit court's credibility determinations.

Id. at 7 (footnote omitted).  Asking the appellate court to reweigh the evidence, standing alone, is not a winning argument.  But I would certainly consider making that argument if I could couple it with an argument regarding legal error.

 The Arkansas Supreme Court disposed of a number of motions on Thursday.  One docket entry, on a petition to review McCain Mall Co. v. Nick's Bar Louie, Inc., 2024 Ark. App. 502, seems unusual.  (This opinion was discussed in this blog's "Opinion highlights for the week of October 20, 2024.")  The petition was docketed in case number CV-23-279, if anyone would like to look at the underlying documents.

Long story short, the Court of Appeals issued an opinion finding that the order appealed was not final - in particular, the court read the parties' arguments as suggesting the counterclaims remained outstanding - and dismissed the appeal without prejudice.  The appellant sought review, apparently arguing that the order appealed was final under Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(a)(2) (orders that effectively determine or discontinue an action are appealable).  The Supreme Court's docket entry states:

Appellant’s petition for review is granted; Court of Appeals opinion vacated; remanded to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. See Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(a)(2).

 

Are summary dispositions of petitions for review in this fashion routine?  I've not yet seen an opinion to accompany this.  It certainly is efficient!

Thanks for reading!

Opinion highlights for the week of January 12, 2025

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals issued eighteen decisions on Wednesday.  As of this posting, I have not seen a docket issued by the Supreme Court.  There are three Court of Appeals decisions noted below.

The court addressed the record necessary for review of a matter subject to an Anders brief in Mouse v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 1.  The rule is that the court "must have the entire record of the circuit court proceedings to be able to properly review a criminal case that is presented to us in an Anders no-merit format." Id. at 1.  Although the entire record was designated in the notice of appeal, the record presented lacked the voir dire of prospective jurors.  The court also noted a potential issue not discussed in the Anders brief.  The court remanded the case to settle and supplement the record.

One of the issues raised in Roberson v. Loy Ray Wagoner Trust, et al., 2025 Ark. App. 4, involved mootness: was the appeal moot because the appellant had already paid the judgment against it?  "When an appellant voluntarily pays a judgment, any appeal of the judgment by the appellant becomes moot." Id. at 5.  One important factor in determining voluntariness is whether the appellant posted a supersedeas bond at the time it satisfied the judgment.  Here, the trial court ordered a release of funds held in the court's registry too promptly after the final order for the appellant to file a notice of appeal, secure a bond, and post it.  Thus, the judgment was not voluntarily paid, so the appeal was not moot.

Finally, the court noted an inadequate "Statement of the Case" in Lewis v. Lewis, 2025 Ark. App. 8.  The discussion is in note 1 on page two of the opinion.  The statement of the case addressed procedural highlights, but not the facts of the matter.  This did not comply with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(6), which requires a concise statement of the case and the facts.  The court noted that the appellee did provide the underlying facts as permitted by Rule 4-2(b).

Comments are always welcome!

Opinion highlights for the week of January 5, 2025

The Arkansas Supreme Court did not hand down any decisions this week; the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down two.  These decisions did not address the issues I like to blog about here, so I won't discuss them further.

In a per curiam opinion delivered January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court noted "the completion of a twenty-five-year process": as of January 1, 2025, "all district courts in our state are served by a full-time, state-employed district judge, and all district courts are organized in designated geographic districts...."  The court directed the Administrative Office of the Courts to assist the district judges in forming an Arkansas District Judges Judicial Council.  If you would like to read this opinion, it is here: https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/523232/1/document.do

Finally, and perhaps not too off topic, a new website (live as of January 1, 2025) provides searchable access to Arkansas's administrative rules.  The website is here: https://codeofarrules.arkansas.gov/  Many thanks to Amanda Freudensprung for the tip and the link.