Opinion highlights for the week of January 25, 2026

 

Despite the weather, our appellate courts handed down decisions this week.  Ten opinions appear on the Court of Appeals' January 28, 2026, docket; two opinions were issued by the Supreme Court the next day.

Two opinions involve what seems to be a rarity: successful "sufficiency of the evidence" arguments.  These are fact-intensive, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time on them here; you should read these opinions if you are interested in winning "sufficiency" arguments.  In Parris v. State, 2026 Ark. 5, the Supreme Court reversed a theft by receiving conviction for lack of substantial evidence: the conviction was based upon inadmissible hearsay about the gun having been stolen.

And in Keeton v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 53, the Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed an obstructing governmental operations conviction, where the basis for the State's case was correct advice the defendant gave her daughter.  The defendant had no interaction with officers attempting to serve a warrant upon her daughter; she merely told her daughter on the phone that she did not have to answer the door.  The evidence was thus insufficient to sustain the conviction.

The Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction in Caldwell v. Arkansas Racing Commission, 2026 Ark. App. 50.  Caldwell appealed an unfavorable Commission decision, but he submitted an untimely petition for review.  The circuit court noted that untimeliness but also addressed the merits in a decision favoring the Commission.  Caldwell then appealed that circuit court decision.  The Court of Appeals found that the circuit court did not err when it found the petition for review to be untimely.

[T]he petition for judicial review was untimely filed in circuit court. This means that court lacked jurisdiction to rule on the additional arguments Caldwell raised. So, too, we lack jurisdiction beyond the task of deciding the threshold question of whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to review the Commission’s decision; as we have explained, it did not, so the Commission’s decision is affirmed.

Id. at 8.

Finally, in Taylor v. Independence County, 2026 Ark. App. 54, the Arkansas Court of Appeals acknowledged that Taylor could raise the Independence County Court's jurisdiction for the first time on appeal.  Apparently the county court issued an order despite the absence of any judicial proceeding invoking the county court's jurisdiction.

The Arkansas Supreme Court also issued a number of per curiam orders, including one noting proposed changes to rules of appellate procedure.  If those proposals are worth reporting here, I will do so by a separate post.

Thank you for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of January 18, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down fifteen opinions yesterday, January 21, 2026; the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down one opinion today.  We will note that Supreme Court opinion and two of the Court of Appeals opinions.

In Rolfe v. State, 2026 Ark. 4, Rolfe appealed the denial of his motion to transfer his case to the circuit court's juvenile division.  His first argument on appeal challenged the constitutionality of the Code section governing juvenile transfers.  Rolfe admitted not raising this constitutional challenge below.

The Supreme Court declined to hear Rolfe's challenge on appeal.  The court noted the "fundamental principle of criminal appellate review that constitutional arguments must be raised at the first opportunity and ruled upon by the circuit court to be preserved for appeal." Id. at 5-6.

Nor did the court accept Rolfe's attempt to "recast his argument as one of subject-matter jurisdiction to save his constitutional claim from glaring procedural difficulties." Id. at 6.  When the State filed a proper information charging Rolfe, the circuit court properly assumed jurisdiction.  "Whether the case should proceed in the criminal or juvenile division is a question of how that jurisdiction is exercised—not whether it exists. That is not a subject-matter-jurisdiction defect that may be raised at any time." Id. at 6.

Turning to the Court of Appeals, Little Rock Plastic Surgery v. Director, 2026 Ark. App. 43, turned on an issue discussed last week.  LRPS's business manager signed a petition for review filed with the Court of Appeals.  The court noted the requirement that corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys.

In the instant case, [the petition's signer] is a business manager, not an attorney, and may not represent LRPS. Invoking the process of a court of law constitutes the practice of law.  Because [the signer] was practicing law when she signed the petition, the petition is null and void. As a result, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal.

Id. at 2 (citation omitted).

Finally, in Greene v. Clark, 2026 Ark. App. 35, the Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal as moot.  While Greene's appeal of a guardianship order was pending, the circuit court entered an order terminating the guardianship.  The Court of Appeals observed that a "case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then-existing legal controversy." Id. at 2.  Nor did the two exceptions to the mootness doctrine - issues capable of repetition that evade review and issues that raise public interest considerations - apply here.  So, rather than issue an advisory opinion, the appeal was dismissed as moot.

Thanks, as always, for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of January 11, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down twenty-four decisions on January 14, 2026.  The next day, the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down one decision.  We'll note that Supreme Court case and a couple of Court of Appeals decisions here.

Eureka Gun and Pawn v. City of Eureka Springs, 2026 Ark. 1, reviews and applies finality rules.  Eureka Gun filed a complaint against the City that included at least eight counts.  At a hearing on Eureka Gun's motion for partial summary judgment - involving the first count alone - the trial court granted the City's motion for a directed verdict.

After the trial court entered its order, Eureka Gun filed an amended complaint restating some of its original claims and adding a new claim.  Eureka Gun also appealed the trial court's decision.

The Supreme Court majority opinion questioned jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  "Although neither party raises the issue, whether an order is final and subject to appeal is a jurisdictional question, which the court will raise sua sponte." Id. at 6.  The court noted the finality requirement of Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(a)(1): appeals can only be taken from final orders, with some exceptions.  An order that contemplates further action by a party or the trial court is not a final, appealable order.

In its notice of appeal, Eureka Gun acknowledged that the trial court only ruled on the first count, but argued that the trial court's action "effectively dismissed the remaining... counts."  The Supreme Court disagreed.  The remainder of Eureka Gun's claims were still pending, and a new claim had been added after the trial court ruled.

It is clear from a review of the record that the bulk of appellants’ claims remain pending before the circuit court awaiting final disposition, and appellants’ notice of appeal expressly states that those pending claims have not been abandoned. Finally, there was no attempt to obtain certification in compliance with Rule 54(b)(1). Therefore, without a final order or a Rule 54(b) certificate, we do not have jurisdiction to address the merits on appeal. Accordingly, we must dismiss the appeal.

Eureka Gun and Pawn, 2026 Ark. 1, at 8.

 In Motel 6 - Unik Group v. Director, 2026 Ark. App. 10, the Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction for a unique - but not unheard of - reason.  Motel 6 petitioned to appeal an administrative agency's decision; the petition was signed by an individual not licensed to practice law in Arkansas.  Actions by persons not authorized to practice law, such as the filing of pleadings, are a nullity.

[A] nonattorney... may not represent Motel 6 in this case. Our case law makes it clear that invoking the process of a court of law constitutes the practice of law. Because [the nonattorney] was practicing law by signing the petition, the petition is null and void. As a result, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal.

Id. at 2.

Dent v. Conway Regional Medical Center, 2026 Ark. App. 15, reiterates the necessity for a specific ruling below to preserve an issue for appeal.  Dent argued, at trial and on appeal, that she had the right to rely on an order extending her time to serve the defendants.  The Court of Appeals observed that the trial court "never ruled on the argument." Id. at 6-7.  Failure to obtain a ruling on an issue precludes appellate review.  "Because Dent did not obtain a specific ruling on the reliance aspect of this argument as presented on appeal, we are precluded from addressing the merits." Id. at 7.

As always, thank you for reading.

2026 Spring Term off to a slow start

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down four decisions on January 7, 2026; the Arkansas Supreme Court did not had down any opinions today.  Both courts' dockets disposed of a number of motions and announced new cases submitted for consideration.

None of those Court of Appeals opinions address issues typically considered here.  We'll make this a short post and see what next week brings.

Useful tips on appellate practice - two Federal sources

Just because something is "new" to me, does not mean it is new to everyone else.  The subjects of this post are prime examples.  These articles have been around for a while, but I just ran across them while researching other topics.  On the chance they may be new to some of you, too, they are referenced here.

The January 2013 issue of the United States Attorneys' Bulletin is dedicated to, and entitled, "Appellate Issues."  Some of the articles' authors are fairly well known federal appellate practitioners of recognized talent.  Some of the articles focus on federal practice; others address topics common to any appellate practice, such as writing, editing, and oral argument.  The issue is here: https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/usao/legacy/2013/02/21/usab6101.pdf

The Department of Justice publishes the Journal of Federal Law and Practice.  Volume 67, number 2 (April 2019) "includes valuable lessons about the pillars of any good appellate practice: effective written and oral communication, sound legal reasoning, and mastery of the trial record."  The issue purports to be "a guidebook for seasoned and novice advocates alike."

The issue is here: https://www.justice.gov/usao/page/file/1156596/dl?inline

These are on my list to download and study.  I hope you find them useful.