Opinion highlights for the week of October 12, 2025

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down five opinions on October 16, 2025; the Arkansas Court of Appeals did not issue any opinions this week.  Two Supreme Court decisions are of interest here.

Weatherford v. State, 2025 Ark. 150, involved an appeal of convictions for murder, residential burglary, and theft of property.  Among other claims, Weatherford argued on appeal that the State did not prove all of the residential burglary elements.  Citing Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(a), the Supreme Court declined to address this argument because it was not presented to the trial court: "[T]he record demonstrates that Weatherford based his directed-verdict motion on different grounds from those raised on appeal." Weatherford, 2025 Ark. 150, at 10.

Weatherford also argued that no testimony supported a sentencing enhancement for committing murder in front of a child.  Again citing Rule 33.1(a), the Supreme Court declined to address this argument: "[A]lthough Weatherford moved for a directed verdict on the sentence enhancement at the close of the State's case, he did not renew this motion at the close of all the evidence." Weatherford, 2025 Ark. 150, at 13.  Thus, the argument was waived.

Hause v. City of Fayetteville, 2025 Ark. 156, involved an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction.  The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court on this point.  Note this language from the majority opinion:

The constitutional questions are disputed, and the law on this issue remains unsettled. We cannot resolve them at this preliminary stage, and the uncertainty does not justify reversing the denial of a preliminary injunction. We reserve judgment until the circuit court addresses the merits, so that any clarification or development of the law can be made on a fully developed record through the normal appellate process.

Id. at 8. A dissent joined by two other judges took the majority to task for not resolving these issues in the instant appeal. 

[T]he majority begins by inventing a new rule that we cannot decide "novel" or "disputed" constitutional or legal questions at the preliminary-injunction stage. ... That's not the law, and I cannot join the majority's newfound approach to reviewing preliminary-injunction decisions.

Id. at 10.

Hause provides another argument against reversing a trial court's preliminary injunction decision, pro or con: the appellate court shouldn't act on the underlying issues until the record is developed.

Thanks for reading!