Opinion highlights for the week of March 30, 2025

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down two opinions this week; by my count, the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down twelve signed decisions.  Two of those Court of Appeals fit my rough criteria for noting here.

Tarr v. Arkansas State Board of Nursing, 2025 Ark. App. 195, addresses the proper standard of review in an administrative appeal.  Tarr challenged the Board's suspension of her license, as affirmed by the circuit court.  She claimed lack of notice and an unduly harsh sanction.

Tarr argued for a de novo standard of review, citing Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369 (2024), which held that courts need not defer to agency interpretations of law in cases of ambiguity.  The Court of Appeals rejected this argument.

We disagree that this is the proper standard.  In both Loper and Myers [v. Yamato Kogyo Co., Ltd., 2020 Ark. 136], the issue was whether courts were required to defer to agency interpretations regarding questions of law and statutory ambiguities.  Both opinions stressed, however, that judicial review of agency fact-finding remains deferential.

Tarr, 2025 Ark. App. 195, at 6 (one citation omitted).  The court disagreed that Tarr's appeal involved statutory interpretation - her receipt of notice involved a factual determination.  Thus, Ark. Code Ann. section 25-15-212(h), and a determination whether substantial evidence supports the agency's decision, provide the proper standard of review.

In Daniels v. Lyle, 2025 Ark. App. 197, Daniels brought a medical malpractice claim following the death of his wife.  Among other arguments, the defendants challenged jurisdiction to hear the appeal.  They noted that Daniels did not designate the complete record on appeal; under Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 3(g), this meant his notice of appeal needed to include a concise statement of points relied upon, but Daniels did not provide that.

The court observed "that the purpose of this rule is to prevent prejudice and afford the appellees an opportunity to require that there be included in the record any matter not designated by the appellant." Daniels, 2025 Ark. App. 197, at 7.  Daniels only raised one point on appeal - this was the only point relied on by the circuit court, and it was fully briefed by the parties. Daniels had also supplemented the record, as ordered, with almost one thousand additional pages of material.  The court thought that was enough: "In this circumstance, we find that the appellees have not been prejudiced, and we proceed to the merits of the appeal." Id. at 8.

Thanks for reading!