The Arkansas Supreme Court decided four cases this week. The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down twenty-two signed opinions. Both courts produced opinions meriting attention here.
In Tilley v. Malvern National Bank, 2025 Ark. 29, Tilley sought to reverse the trial court's award of summary judgment below. His first argument to the Arkansas Supreme Court complained that, upon remand of an earlier decision, the trial court ignored the Supreme Court's mandate "for a jury trial" when it considered and granted the motion for summary judgment.
MNB argued that Tilley did not develop this argument below, nor did he obtain a ruling from the trial court. The Supreme Court noted that Tilley devoted the better part of a page to developing this argument before the trial court. Nor was the Supreme Court concerned about the purported lack of a ruling.
Compliance with the mandate on remand is an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction that can be raised at any time, including for the first time on appeal. This is an issue of subject-matter jurisdiction because the mandate tells a circuit court, among other things, what it has jurisdiction to consider on remand. Thus, Tilley has not waived his mandate argument.
Id. at 4 (footnote omitted). Although beyond this blog's scope, the subsequent discussion among the justices is instructive. The majority determined that the trial court did not contravene the mandate; a minority believed that the trial court "violated" the mandate. This discussion is worth your review.
Turning to the Court of Appeals, in Ross v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 204, the court opined that Ross did not preserve an argument for appeal. Ross argued that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress a statement for a number of reasons, including false promises of leniency. The court did not think this argument was preserved.
When an appellant has raised multiple arguments in his motion to suppress, we will refuse to reach the merits of those arguments that were not specifically ruled on by the circuit court in denying the motion. Ross did not raise the issue of offers of leniency below; thus, it is not preserved for appeal.
Id. at 7.
An argument changed on appeal was not considered in Sanders v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 205. On appeal, Sanders argued that the evidence was insufficient to convict him - the evidence did not negate his justification defense. The court noted that "a party is bound by the nature and scope of the objection and arguments made at trial and may not enlarge or change those grounds on appeal." Id. at 5. Below, Sanders argued the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate his intent to injure; the court distinguished that argument from his justification argument on appeal, which was not articulated below and thus not preserved for review.
In Buzbee v. Blann Transportation, 2025 Ark. App. 206, a section of the opinion starting on page 14 is entitled "Preservation Issues." The court disposed of a number of arguments that were "either raised for the first time on appeal or not supported by citation to authority...." Id. at 14. By my count there are at least four arguments summarily disposed of here; rather than delve into them, they are noted if you are interested.
If you are still with me, take heart - the last case I'll note is McAllister v. McAllister, 2025 Ark. App. 215. In this probate case, the trial court vacated a TRO on June 21, 2023; Appellant filed a notice of appeal concerning this order that same day; on October 2, 2023, the trial court entered a "Certification of Final Judgment" that made a number of substantive findings and conclusions; the Appellant did not file a new notice of appeal or amend the earlier notice.
The Court of Appeals concluded that it lacked jurisdiction. The October 2, 2023, order was a final order, but Appellant didn't file a notice of appeal about this order, so "we have no jurisdiction to hear an appeal from that order." Id. at 6.
The notice of appeal from the order vacating the TRO was of no moment. TROs are "short-term, stop-gap remed[ies]". Id. at 6-7. "The question of whether the TRO should have been vacated in June 2023 is now moot because it has been replaced by an October 2023 final order" addressing the merits. Id. at 7. "As a general rule, this court will not review issues that are moot. To do so would be to render advisory opinions, which this court will not do." Id.
Hopefully the weather will be better this weekend than last - I hope you enjoy it.
No comments:
Post a Comment