The Arkansas Supreme Court issued two decisions this week; the Arkansas Court of Appeals issued fourteen signed decisions. Several of the Court of Appeals decisions are relevant here.
Two decisions touched on - or raised questions about - the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.
In Centofante, et al. v. Ferguson, et al., 2025 Ark. App. 303, the court resolved a question about county court subject matter jurisdiction under Ark. Const. art. 7, sec. 28. The interesting thing is that the court decided this case without mentioning Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(1), which assigns jurisdiction over "[a]ll appeals involving the interpretation or construction of the Constitution of Arkansas" to the Supreme Court. It is uncertain whether this opinion tells us anything about the meaning of Rule 1-2(a)(1), but the precedent is there.
Please note that I'm working with another attorney on an appeal involving this same issue - but that appeal is in the Supreme Court.
In City of Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Comm'n v. Aramark Educational Services, 2025 Ark. App. 306, the court addressed a circuit court ruling finding Aramark exempt from a tax. Footnote 1 explains the jurisdictional question involving Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(8), which assigns "[a]ppeals required by law to be heard by the Supreme Court" to that court.
After this appeal was filed in our court, we certified the case to the supreme court pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(a)(8), which provides that appeals required by law to be heard by the supreme court shall be filed in that court. We cited Ark. Code Ann. ยง 26-18-406(c)(2) (Supp. 2023) of the Arkansas Tax Procedure Act, which provides that an appeal of a circuit court decision under this section lies from the circuit court to the supreme court. The supreme court denied certification and declined to accept jurisdiction. Accordingly, our court has jurisdiction of this appeal.
City of Pine Bluff, 2025 Ark. App. 303, at 1-2 n.1. A concurring opinion offers further explanation behind the Court of Appeals' decision to certify the case under the rule.
Turning to other issues, the Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal for lack of a final order in University Medical Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Team Direct Management, 2025 Ark. App. 297. The order appealed from disposed of fewer than all of the claims, and no Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certificate was in the record. Three claims were asserted in the complaint, but the order only adjudicated one of them. Of the other two claims, one was voluntarily nonsuited without prejudice, meaning it could be refiled within one year. And the second of the two remaining claims was not addressed at the trial level, at all. Because these two claims were not disposed of below, the court lacked jurisdiction to reach the merits of the appeal.
In Dosia v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 299, the court declined to consider the argument presented on appeal. Dosia argued in a written motion to suppress that the officers entered his home illegally in violation of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. At the hearing on the motion, he argued that the search was conducted in an unreasonable manner; the motion to suppress was denied. On appeal, Dosia argued that the officers entered the home illegally in violation of statutory requirements. This argument was made for the first time on appeal - there was no ruling on it below - therefore it was not preserved for review.
Finally, in Briley v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2025 Ark. App. 302, Briley argued that the court could consider his due process arguments for the first time on appeal under the third Wicks exception. This is a termination of parental rights case, not a criminal appeal, so the Wicks discussion occurs in a different context. The third Wicks exception concerns a court's duty to intervene, even if there is no objection, to correct a serious error either by a jury admonition or by ordering a mistrial. Briley's claims involved insufficient service of process, lack of participation in the hearings, and an appointed counsel so ineffective that he was denied due process. Ultimately, the court determined that Briley's claimed errors were not "serious" enough to warrant application of this exception.
As always, thanks for reading.
No comments:
Post a Comment