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.