Opinion highlights for the week of February 22, 2026

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court did not hand down any opinions yesterday - but it was a busy day at the Arkansas Court of Appeals on Wednesday, February 25.  By my count, twenty-six signed opinions and one per curiam opinion were issued by the Court of Appeals.  That per curiam opinion may be the most interesting of the lot from an appellate practitioner's standpoint, but we'll consider a couple of the other opinions, too.

In Tate v. Phillips County, 2026 Ark. App. 141, Tate moved to remand her appeal for lack of a final order.  Apparently, in an attempt to comply with Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b), the required Rule 54(b) certificate was signed and entered as a "stand-alone" document; it did not follow immediately after the circuit judge's signature on the judgment.  Tate conceded that this certificate did not suffice to confer jurisdiction on appeal, and asked for a remand for entry of a compliant judgment and certificate.

Instead of granting Tate's motion, the Court of Appeals dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, due to improper placement of the certificate.

Rule 54(b)(1) requires that a proper certificate “shall appear immediately after the court’s signature on the judgment.” (Emphasis added.) Our supreme court has construed the word “shall” when used in our rules of civil procedure to mean that compliance is mandatory. The plain language of the rule therefore requires that the certificate be located on the judgment immediately after the court’s signature. ...

...

Because the circuit court’s purported certificate in this case was not located on the judgment, it is insufficient to permit an appeal under Rule 54(b). Because the order before us is not final, we lack jurisdiction over the matter and have no recourse other than to dismiss the appeal.

Tate, 2026 Ark. App. 141, at 2-3 (citations omitted).

The concurrence and dissent in Tate are both worth reading.  The concurrence notes the benefit of having a settled, bright-line rule, even if we don't like it.  It also offers a form certificate in compliance with Rule 54(b).  The dissent makes the point that everything required for jurisdiction was in the record, just not in the proper order.  It questions why the court didn't grant Tate's motion and remand, instead of dismissing the appeal - that would have been a less costly and time-consuming approach.

Settles v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 119, addresses the specificity required for a proper motion for directed verdict.  Settles' motion argued that "he didn't do anything that the statute required him to do," and noted particular acts he did not take. Id. at 2.  One reason the Court of Appeals did not reach this argument is lack of specificity.  "To preserve for appeal a court’s decision on a directed-verdict motion, the issue must be stated clearly and specifically to the circuit court." Id. at 4. Settles' contention that he did not do "anything" was not specific enough: "Because he did not identify the elements of the crime set forth in the statute, Settles’ motion did not meet the specificity requirements of Rule 33.1." Id. at 5.

Finally, Humes v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 122, notes a recent exchange on the Arkansas Supreme Court.  Humes challenged the sufficiency of the State's evidence.  The Court of Appeals "reviewed the entire record" but noted in a footnote:

 

Following our supreme court’s lead, we have restricted our consideration in this criminal sufficiency-of-evidence appeal to evidence that tended to support the conviction. Our supreme court’s most recent decisions in this area have omitted that express restriction. Compare Matthews v. State, 2025 Ark. 213, at 4–5, 725 S.W.3d 16, 19 (citing Jones v. State, 269 Ark. 119, 598 S.W.2d 748 (1980)..., with Matthews, 2025 Ark. 213, at 8, 725 S.W.3d at 21 (Baker, C.J., concurring) (objecting that the majority omitted the restriction from the standard of review); see also Reaves v. State, 2025 Ark. 202, 725 S.W.3d 22 (omitting the same restriction the same day); Tait v. State, 2026 Ark. 28 (omitting it since). Because the outcome in this appeal is the same whether we look at all the evidence or some of it, here we merely note the issue.

Humes, 2026 Ark. App. 122, at 4 n.1 (some citations omitted). 

Thank you for reading.