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!