Opinion highlights for the week of September 20, 2026

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court's September 24, 2026, nine-page syllabus primarily disposed of various petitions for review and motions.  No opinions were handed down, but seven cases were submitted for decision.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals produced seventeen opinions on September 23, 2026.  Yet again, there are several candidates for discussion here, but we'll focus on two of them.

Birotte v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 428, considered a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to an aggravated assault conviction.  At trial, Birotte did not challenge the aggravated assault charge in his motion for a directed verdict - nothing in that motion alerted the trial court to a sufficiency of the evidence challenge to aggravated assault.  But on appeal, Birotte based his challenge on language used in the context of another challenge below to a different charge.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed because Birotte did not preserve this argument in compliance with Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1.

Rule 33.1 requires more than the use of language that might also bear upon an element of another offense. The motion must sufficiently identify the particular deficiency in the State’s proof to alert the circuit court to the issue being raised. Here, counsel specifically identified the charges of fleeing and criminal mischief and articulated the alleged deficiencies in the State’s proof as to those charges. He did not do so with respect to aggravated assault.

Birotte, 2026 Ark. App. 428, at 4 (citation omitted).

Southern Farm Bureau v. Arvie, 2026 Ark. App. 433, contains a couple of interesting points.  This case involved a Pulaski County Circuit Judge's decision to transfer this declaratory judgment case to Phillips County Circuit Court.  A related auto accident case was already pending in Phillips County.  Southern Farm Bureau ("SFB") appealed the trial court's transfer order.

The Court of Appeals determined that the transfer order was a final, appealable order for purpose of appellate jurisdiction. Id. at 4 n.7.  The Arkansas Supreme Court found a similar order to be final, but there were other cases pointing in the other direction.  This order, like the one found to be final by the Supreme Court, "effectively transferred the entire action to another county. Thus, pursuant to the supreme court’s most recent declarations, we find this order to be a final, appealable order and that we have jurisdiction over the matter." Id. 5 n.7.

The transfer order did not indicate the basis for the transfer decision, but at the hearing stated a reason.  The Court of Appeals relied on that oral reason in its decision.

Here, there was no conflict or discrepancy between the circuit court’s oral ruling and its written order. Rather, the oral ruling merely explained the simple denial in the written order, and we routinely rely on a circuit court’s oral statements from the bench to inform or to explain the reasoning behind a written order.

Id. at 6 n.8.  The trial court's decision was reversed.

Thanks for reading - enjoy your weekend. 

Opinion highlights for the week of September 13, 2026

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court did not issue a syllabus this week.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals' September 16, 2026, syllabus lists twenty opinions.  There are several candidates for mention here, but we'll note four of them.

Hall appealed the revocation of his suspended imposition of sentence in Hall v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 405.  He argued that the trial court erred in finding a violation of his conditions and he challenged two conditions on First Amendment grounds.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals first noted that Hall's admission to one violation sufficed to revoke his SIS.  Turning to the constitutional challenge, the court declined to address that: since it affirmed the revocation due to violation of another condition, there was no need to address the constitutional challenge.  The court noted: "Our supreme court has held that it will not address a constitutional argument when the case can be disposed of without doing so." Hall, 2026 Ark. App. 405, at 7.

Hernandez v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 400, documents a six-judge panel's disagreement over the adequacy of an Anders "no merits" brief.  The majority, citing Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(b), took issue with the brief's treatment of the revocation decision at trial.

The revocation decision is an adverse ruling, and the Rule requires counsel to provide “an explanation as to why each adverse ruling is not a meritorious ground for reversal.” Counsel’s argument section includes no reference to the evidence, the circuit court’s findings, or our standard of review, and there is no explanation as to why an appeal of the revocation decision would be wholly without merit.

Hernandez, 2026 Ark. App. 400, at 3.  The majority believed counsel's "one-page argument section is noncompliant." Id. at 3 n.2.

The dissenting judge noted: "There is no merit to an appeal of the circuit court's revocation, and no change in the brief will alter that fact." Id. at 7.  He believed the majority took "too stringent" of a view of the briefing requirements and reviewed the ways in which the brief was adequate.

This case is worth reviewing if you file Anders briefs.

In Mion v. Bishop, 2026 Ark. App. 408, Mion's counsel argued at trial that the circuit court should apply two cases applicable to "spite fences."  On appeal, counsel argued that the circuit court relied on "spite fence" law but did not address cases on nuisance law.  The Court of Appeals declined to address this argument.

Mion cannot urge the circuit court to apply the law found in [the two "spite fence" cases] and on appeal ask this court to apply general nuisance law. It is well settled that under the doctrine of invited error, a party may not complain on appeal of an erroneous action of a circuit court if he or she induced or acquiesced in that action. This court has also long held that it will not review an alleged erroneous ruling or order unless a party makes known to the circuit court beforehand the action that he or she desires the court to take or objects to the action of the court and cites the grounds, therefore.

 Id. at 11 (citations omitted).

Finally, in Lynch v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2026 Ark. App. 411, the Court of Appeals noted that DHS made an argument for termination on an independent ground not ruled on by the circuit court.  The Court of Appeals affirmed on the basis of that argument in the course of its de novo review.

 

Under our de novo review, we will affirm a termination-of-parental-rights order on a statutory ground that was pled in a DHS petition but not relied on—or addressed—by the circuit court if the ground was proved at the termination hearing. This principle is consistent with the broader rule that an appellate court may affirm when the circuit court reaches the right result, even if for a different reason. Our de novo review opens the entire record for review and does not constrain the appellate court to the circuit court’s rationale, allowing for review of the record for additional reasons to affirm.

Id. at 8-9 (citation omitted).

Thank you for reading. 

Opinion highlights for the week of September 6, 2026

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court issued a syllabus today.  No decisions were handed down, but several cases are listed as submitted.  The eight-page syllabus also lists a number of orders disposing of motions.

Yesterday, September 9, 2026, the Arkansas Court of Appeals issued a syllabus listing decisions in ten cases.  We'll note one of those decisions here.

Whitt v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 398, involved an appeal from multiple convictions.  Whitt argued on appeal a lack of substantial evidence on one element supporting one conviction.  The State argued that Whitt did not make this specific argument below, so the argument was not preserved for review.

The Court of Appeals agreed with the State.  It noted Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c)'s requirement that a motion for directed verdict must "specify the respect in which the evidence is deficient."  A general motion does not meet that requirement.  Whitt's motion below failed this test.

Appellant’s directed-verdict motion before the circuit court was only a recitation of the elements of rape. He did not identify the specific element that he now claims the State failed to prove. Because appellant’s motion did not inform the circuit court of the specific issue in the State’s case that is now being challenged, this issue is not preserved for review.

Whitt, 2026 Ark. App. 398, at 3 (footnote omitted).  The Arkansas Court of Appeals applied this same rule to another argument on appeal, where Whitt's "directed-verdict motion... was also nothing more than a recitation of the elements of the crime." Id. at 4.

Thank you for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of August 30, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals' September 2, 2026, syllabus notes twelve decisions.  The Arkansas Supreme Court did not issue a syllabus this morning.  Two of those Court of Appeals opinions are of interest here.

Henderson v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 378, involves a challenge to certain fees and costs imposed in a probation revocation proceeding.  The State argued that the Court of Appeals lacked jurisdiction, since Henderson's notice of appeal did not list prior orders imposing some of those fees and costs.

The Court of Appeals rejected the State's argument for two reasons.  First, the sentencing order on appeal incorporated those prior orders when it ordered Henderson to "pay all previously assessed fines, costs, restitution, etc. upon release."  Second, Henderson's argument invoked the issue of an illegal sentence, which can be raised as a matter of subject matter jurisdiction for the first time on appeal.  Thus, the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to reach the merits.

The appellant challenged the propriety of a sentencing order's forfeiture provision in Roberts v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 381.  On appeal, the State conceded that the forfeiture provision should be removed upon remand.  The Court of Appeals ordered that relief, but otherwise affirmed Roberts' conviction.

Roberts argued that he could challenge the forfeiture provision on appeal without having filed a post-trial motion to preserve the issue, since "the forfeiture provision appeared without notice for the first time in the sentencing order." Id. at 3.  The Court of Appeals agreed.

When an appellant has no opportunity to object to a sentencing error in the circuit court, the absence of an objection does not preclude appellate review. See, e.g., Eberlein v. State, 315 Ark. 591, 593–94, 869 S.W.2d 12, 13–14 (1994). Here, the circuit court did not order the forfeiture when it pronounced the sentence; the forfeiture provision appeared for the first time in the sentencing order. Accordingly, Roberts had no opportunity to object before the sentencing order was entered.

Roberts, 2026 Ark. App. 381, at 3-4.  The court also noted that Robert's challenge raised an illegal sentence issue which could be reviewed for the first time on appeal.  Thus, his claim was properly before the appellate court.

Interestingly, the Court of Appeals did not cite Wicks.  But the second exception to the plain error rule set forth in that case involves exactly this rule: even if not preserved below, an issue may be raised on appeal "when the error is made by the trial judge himself at a time when defense counsel has no knowledge of the error and hence no opportunity to object." Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 786, 606 S.W.3d 366, 369 (1980).  The language in Roberts could be broad enough to support other arguments about sentencing order errors - if the context is similar - made for the first time on appeal.  Citing the second Wicks exception wouldn't hurt.

Thanks for reading.  Enjoy your Labor Day weekend.

Opinion highlights for the week of August 23, 2026

 

Last week, the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down seven opinions.  The Arkansas Supreme Court did not issue a syllabus.  Three of those Court of Appeals decisions are noted here.

The Court of Appeals remanded Johnson v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 369, to settle and supplement the record.  The peremptory strikes at trial all occurred off the record.  But to review the submitted no-merits brief for Anders compliance, the appellate court "must be provided with the entire record of the circuit court proceedings, including a transcript of the jury selection process." Id. at 2.  Without a transcript, the Court of Appeals could not be assured that there were no objections or adverse rulings during this portion of the trial.

The Court of Appeals acknowledged that a verbatim record is ideal, but not required in every instance - the court would evaluate whether the supplemental record enabled full and complete appellate review.  "Accordingly, in the absence of a verbatim record of the peremptory strikes, the record should be reconstructed." Id.

Hughes v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 371, involved a claim that a juror should have been removed.  At trial, Hughes' attorney did not object when given the opportunity by the trial court.  On appeal, Hughes argued that the this issue could be addressed under the third Wicks exception to the rule requiring a contemporaneous objection at trial.

The third Wicks exception allows consideration of an unpreserved argument when the trial court had a duty to intervene, even without a party's objection, to address flagrant and highly prejudicial errors.  The Court of Appeals noted that "Arkansas appellate courts have repeatedly rejected attempts to invoke Wicks in cases involving alleged juror bias or misconduct when no contemporaneous objection was made." Hughes, 2026 Ark. App. 371, at 3.  Because his argument was not preserved at trial and Wicks did not apply, the Court of Appeals did not consider Hughes' arguments about the juror.

Finally, Floyd v. Bowlin-Lemon, 2026 Ark. App. 373, arose out of a boundary dispute.  At trial, appellants offered to rebuild a certain fence; after confirming that offer, the trial court ordered that the fence be rebuilt.  Appellants promptly challenged that on appeal.  The Court of Appeals found that appellants waived this argument at trial, so that it was not preserved for review: "It is well settled that a party may not complain on appeal of an action that he induced, consented to, or acquiesced in below." Id. at 9.

Enjoy your week - thank you for reading.

Settlement immediately prior to oral argument - one panel's reaction

 

You are in the courtroom to present oral argument.  Thirty minutes prior to the start of the court's session, you learn that the parties have settled their dispute.  What would you do?  How would you address this development to the appellate court?

That happened this morning before a panel of the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  The case is Meta Platforms, Inc., et al. v. State of Arkansas ex rel. Tim Griffin, Attorney General, CV-24-592.

When the case was called, Meta's attorney informed the panel that thirty minutes prior to argument he was notified that the parties had settled.  He offered to continue with or forego argument, as the court wished.  The panel asked the State for its reaction, but that attorney did not come to the podium and I could not make out her response.

The panel's response was, essentially: "It's your case.  How would you like to proceed?"  Meta's attorney opted to present argument.  Interestingly, the panel did not ask a single question of either attorney.

I've not seen this happen before, although I'm sure this was not the first time a case settled immediately prior to argument or submission for decision.  It might be interesting to see how this case unfolds.

Have a good day.

Opinion highlights for the week of August 16, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down eleven opinions yesterday.  The Arkansas Supreme Court did not post a syllabus this morning.  We'll ease back into a routine by looking at a couple of those Court of Appeals opinions.

In King v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 358, King appealed convictions for drug and paraphernalia possession.  She objected to admission of certified copies of two prior convictions - apparently on relevance grounds - but the trial court ruled that she opened the door for the documents' admission.

On appeal, King argued that the convictions were improperly admitted for the purpose of proving her guilt.  The Court of Appeals determined that King's argument was not preserved for appeal.  "Parties cannot change the grounds for an objection on appeal but are bound by the scope and nature of their objections as presented at trial." Id. at 4.  King did not raise her appellate arguments below, much less obtain a ruling on them, so they were not preserved for review.

Moore v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2026 Ark. App. 363, is a child custody case.  Moore appealed an award of child custody to the mother, not him.  One of his arguments was that "reunification with a fit parent" is not a permanency goal under the Juvenile Code, but pursuing that goal caused the trial court to improperly focus on reunification with the child's mother.

The Court of Appeals found that this argument was not preserved for appeal.  Moore specifically appealed the November 10, 2025 order determining custody, but relevant findings were made in an earlier order.  Thus, "Moore failed to preserve that argument for appellate review because he did not challenge the prior order below or designate the relevant review hearing in his notice of appeal." Id. at 11.  The Court of Appeals cited Velazquez v. Ark. Dep't of Hum. Servs., 2011 Ark. App. 168, at 5, in support of that statement.

Thank you for reading.

Proposed amendments to Fed. R. App. P. 25 (filing and service)

 

On August 14, 2026, the various federal Judicial Conference Advisory Committees on Rules published proposed amendments to their respective rules.  These rules are open for public comment through February 15, 2027.

Rule 25 is the only Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure subject to proposed amendments.  That rule generally addresses filing and service of papers.

The proposed amendments address an unrepresented litigant's ability to file electronically.  Under the amendments, the default position would permit such a litigant access to a court's electronic filing system.  A court could adopt a local rule disallowing such access, but that court would need to provide alternative electronic means for filing and for receiving notice of court filings and orders.

These amendments change the current default position: "Under the current national rules, self-represented litigants generally must file non-electronically unless authorized to file electronically by court order or local rule."

The amendments also reduce the need for paper service on persons who receive notice of case activity through a court's electronic filing system.

If you would like to review Rule 25's proposed amendments and supporting commentary, you can find those items here: Proposed Amendments Published for Public Comment

These amendments, coupled with the Arkansas Supreme Court's recent publication of a Non-Lawyer's Guide to Arkansas Appeals, reflect that concerns over pro se or unrepresented litigant filings affect appellate courts, too.

Opinion highlights for the week of August 9, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals' August 12, 2026, syllabus runs to sixteen pages.  Most of the entries are per curiam orders addressing motions, fee petitions, and the like.  No opinions were handed down, but additional cases and motions are listed as submitted for decision.

The Arkansas Supreme Court did not post a syllabus this morning.

So, really, there are no opinions to highlight this week - but stay tuned.

There is an interesting oral argument on the horizon.  On August 26, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., the Court of Appeals will hear argument in CV-24-592, an appeal pitting Meta Platforms and others against the Attorney General's office.  An attorney from Covington & Burling with extensive appellate experience will argue for Meta Platforms.  This might be worth watching online.

Thank you for reading.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals begins its 2026 Fall Term - and a new pro se guide to Arkansas appeals

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals issued an eleven-page syllabus this morning, August 5, 2026.  The last page lists cases submitted for decision.  No opinions were handed down.  It is safe to say Summer Break is over for this court.

On another topic, in the course of her "State of the Judiciary" speech at last June's Arkansas Bar Association meeting, Chief Justice Karen Baker mentioned that a manual for pro se appellate litigants was in preparation.  This publication is part of the court's ongoing efforts to retain public trust and confidence.

I am not certain when it was posted, but the manual appears to be complete and available to the public at https://arcourts.gov/sites/default/files/Pro_Se_Appeals_Version_11.pdf  It is also linked under the "Helpful Links" heading to the right.

The manual is very clear that it is not to be cited: it "may not be cited as legal authority in court filings."  It may be helpful to practicing attorneys - if your client wants to understand what an appeal involves, perhaps a copy of the manual can help answer their questions.

Thanks for reading.

Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference, July 14 - 16, 2027

 

Although about a year away, if you handle federal appeals - or just want an excuse to visit Davenport, Iowa - this might need to be on your calendar.

Opinion highlights for the week of May 17, 2026 - part two

 

This post addresses the remaining cases on the Arkansas Court of Appeals' May 20, 2026, docket not covered in my July 9, 2026, post.  Three decisions are noted here.

Muruaga-Atkins v. Foster, 2026 Ark. App. 336, involves a dispute over listing real property for sale and over membership in the organization seeking to effect the sale.  Among other arguments, the appellants challenged the organization's authority to sell the property.

The Court of Appeals declined to address this point on ripeness grounds.  Ripeness is a jurisdictional issue - the court lacks jurisdiction to consider issues that are not ripe for review on appeal. Id. at 19.  At this point, the organization had only voted to list the property for sale - it had not yet been listed, nor had an offer to purchase been accepted.  This situation was not reviewable.

Thus, the issue is not ripe for our review. Moreover, at this juncture and without knowing the specifics surrounding the ultimate sale of the property, any determination as to the authority of AFF to sell the property at issue would constitute an advisory opinion. This court will not render an advisory opinion.

Id. at 19-20.

One of the issues in Summers v. Bank OZK, 2026 Ark. App. 352, involved the effectiveness of a Rule 54(b) certificate.  A non-final order was entered by the trial court in June of 2022; some fifteen months later, in September of 2023, a Rule 54(b) certificate was filed separately.

The Court of Appeals noted Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1)'s requirement that a Rule 54(b) certificate "shall appear immediately after the court's signature on the judgment."  Here, the certificate was a standalone document initially filed fifteen months after the order.

Later in September of 2023, the trial court granted a motion to combine the order and certificate.  The majority found that this did not cure the jurisdictional defect.

While the order purports to cure the defective Rule 54(b) certificate—it being a separate document from the judgment—it is insufficient. The after-the-fact order consolidating the pleadings does not trump the statutory requirement that the Rule 54(b) certificate be placed on the judgment itself immediately following the court’s signature. Here, it is a complete standalone document with its own case caption. Further, the record demonstrates that although the two pleadings were refiled together as instructed by the court, there were no changes to the documents themselves. 

Summers, 2026 Ark. App. 352, at 14.  The court found that this "combined order" Rule 54(b) certificate did not comply with the rules, and therefore the court lacked jurisdiction to consider the combined order on appeal.

A dissent argued that the combined order could be addressed on appeal - the certificate did not standalone, but it was part of a single combined document and it appears after the trial court's signature on the order.

Readers may recall that the Arkansas Supreme Court is considering changes to Rule 54(b) that will address this issue.  The relevant per curiam opinion is at 2026 Ark. 111.

Finally, Harding Logistics v. Director, 2026 Ark. App. 355, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  The petition for review from a Board of Review decision was signed by the president of the employer company, but he was not an attorney.  The act of someone not licensed to practice law, in an attempt to represent others, is a nullity.  The petition seeking review was null and void, leaving the court without jurisdiction.

Enjoy your day.

Opinion highlights for the week of May 17, 2026 - part one

 

An earlier post noted that the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down forty-five decisions on May 20, 2026.  Having reviewed decisions authored by six judges, I will note four of those decisions here.  A subsequent post will highlight decisions authored by the other six judges.

These four cases involve fairly common appellate practice issues, but they provide worthwhile reminders.

Finney v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 308, involves a probation revocation appeal.  Finney argued that the State did not prove that he inexcusably violated his probationary terms and conditions.  However, the trial court revoked his probation on multiple grounds, and Finney failed to challenge at least one of them on appeal.  The Court of Appeals affirmed, applying the rule that "[w]hen the circuit court bases its decision to revoke on multiple independent grounds, and the appellant fails to challenge any independent alternative basis for the judgment, we will affirm without addressing the arguments targeted to the other grounds." Id. at 3.

Hernandez v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 315 also involves probation revocation.  Counsel for Hernandez filed an Anders brief, but the Court of Appeals ordered rebriefing.  Hernandez provides a good review of Anders' requirements and illustrates its application, but I want to note this line from the Hernandez opinion: "We will continue to order rebriefing until compliance with Anders and Rule 4- 3(b)(1) is achieved." Hernandez, 2026 Ark. App. 315, at 3.

Goodnight v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2026 Ark. App. 316, is a child custody appeal.  The Court of Appeals listed seven arguments raised by Goodnight, but declined to address any of them.

As the Department explains, Kristen does not support any of the above arguments with citations to any legal authority. “We do not consider arguments without convincing argument or citation to authority where it is not apparent without further research that the arguments are well-taken.”

Id. at 9 (citation omitted).  The Court of Appeals did consider a "best interest" argument.

Finally, McDaniel v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 327, addresses an appeal from a second-degree sexual assault conviction.  The Court of Appeals offered a cautionary note about McDaniel's statement of the case and the facts, but "all appellate counsel" are encouraged to pay attention here:

Were it not for the State’s thorough supplemental statement of the case and facts, we would not reach the merits of this appeal without first requiring that the case be rebriefed. Appellant’s statement of the case and facts is woefully deficient, providing only an overview of the case’s procedural path to trial, a brief description of the portion of the trial testimony and the instruction to which McDaniel objected, and references to his motions for directed verdict. The statement of the case does not provide any substantive testimony or evidence, which is especially troubling when considering that the transcript is over one thousand pages long and McDaniel challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 directs counsel on the required contents of appellate briefs: the statement of the case and facts shall include all information in the appellate record that is essential to understand the case and decide the issues on appeal. Ark. R. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(6). The requirements of Rule 4-2 are mandatory. McDaniel’s counsel is not alone in failing to provide an adequate statement of the case. This is a frequent occurrence and merits all appellate counsel’s review of Rule 4-2 and adherence thereto.

McDaniel, 2026 Ark. App. 327, at 2 n.1 (citation omitted).

Thank you for reading. 

Summer Break 2026 - part two

 

Summer break rolls on.  Last week, the Arkansas Supreme Court did not post a syllabus.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals did post a syllabus on Wednesday, July 1, 2026.  Sixteen pages in length, that syllabus lists orders disposing of the matters submitted the week before - there are no opinions to note.

The Court of Appeals' syllabus documents the filing of an amicus brief that is interesting.  Filed by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in Roark v. Hyland, CV-25-540, the brief does a good job setting forth the Society's policy related to the case and the potential harm from a ruling against the City of Little Rock, all in less than eleven pages of argument.  The only authorities cited are Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-6, a book, and three items from the internet.

Thank you for reading.

Summer Break 2026 - part one

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court did not issue a docket this week.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals issued a twelve-page docket on Wednesday, June 24, 2026.  This listed a variety of items submitted for decision: petitions for rehearing, fee petitions, various motions to address problems in the record, motions to substitute or appoint counsel, and so forth.  Typically, there will be a docket next week announcing the Court of Appeals' disposition of each item submitted this week.

There's really nothing else to report, other than that last raft of Court of Appeals decisions I need to review.  Have a great day!

The 128th Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Bar Association

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court's single decision issued yesterday addresses a common preservation issue, and the single per curiam opinion also issued yesterday addressed a matter related to admission to the Bar.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not issue a docket this week.  There's nothing to discuss on that front.

The 128th Annual Meeting of the Arkansas Bar Association concluded today.  If you are an Arkansas attorney, you owe it to yourself to attend at least one of these.  I missed this afternoon's session with the former Solicitor General of Oklahoma, but I did attend other programs related to appellate practice.

On June 10, 2026, two Court of Appeals judges and a circuit judge presented "Life after Nalley."  I'm going to paraphrase a few of one appellate judge's comments.  (1) Just like attorneys might struggle with what the Court of Appeals says, that court struggles with what the Arkansas Supreme Court says.  (2) The Court of Appeals is really constrained by the record, arguments of parties, and standards of review.  (3) The court sees problems with the use of inconsistent terms to describe the same matter, such as in custody orders.

His most interesting comment - to me - is that all opinions are circulated to all 12 judges before they are released, not just to the 3 on the panel signing the opinion, so that all 12 judges have the opportunity to offer comments and ask questions about the proposed opinion.

After the Nalley program, Tory H. Lewis presented "Appellate Update: The Latest and Greatest in Family Law Appeals."  Ms. Lewis did an excellent job, but since she focused on substantive family law topics, I won't summarize her presentation here.

Today, June 12, 2026, the Chief Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court gave the annual State of the Judiciary speech.  She highlighted the traveling court program, JLAP's assistance programs, and the preparation of a manual for pro se appellate litigants.  All of these matters reflect the court's ongoing efforts to retain the public's trust and confidence.

One of the other presenters, Casey Mock, offered highly interesting presentations on technology.  A common concern is the effect of social media, etc., on our ability to think clearly.  This photo captures one of Mr. Mock's points:

All-in-all, a great Annual Meeting.

Have a great weekend.

Rule changes and proposals of interest to appellate lawyers

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not hand down a docket this week.  Summer break is in process for that court.

The Arkansas Supreme Court did hand down one opinion, but it did not contain any appellate practice or procedural issues of interest here.   There were a number of per curiam opinions issued addressing rules changes, adopted and proposed.  Two of these opinions merit notice in this post.

One per curiam opinion, at 2026 Ark. 107, adopted changes to Rules 3(f), 4(a), and 6(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure - Civil.  Rule 3(f)'s amendment deletes the requirement for service of a notice of appeal or cross-appeal "by any form of mail which requires a signed receipt."  This simply isn't necessary with electronic filing.  Rule 4(a) makes a related change: the time limit for filing a notice of cross-appeal now begins with filing of the notice of appeal, not receipt of it.  Rule 6(b)'s change is similar: the appellee's designation of additional parts of the record on appeal must be made within ten days after filing of the notice of appeal, not its receipt.

A second per curiam, at 2026 Ark. 111, proposes changes to Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) and Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 4(a).  The mere mention of Rule 54(b) should be enough to get your attention.

To put this second per curiam into context, recall the case of Tate v. Phillips County, 2026 Ark. App. 141, summarized here on February 22, 2026.  In Tate, the Court of Appeals dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to the improper placement of a Rule 54(b) certificate.  The rule required that the certificate "shall appear immediately after the court's signature on the judgment," but the certificate in Tate was signed and entered as a "stand-alone" document.

The proposed change to Rule 54(b) addresses that issue.  If adopted, the certificate "may be attached to the judgment or filed separately...."  The proposed Reporter's Note states that the trial "[c]ourt and the parties remain free to make it part of the judgment document."

The proposal also provides a method for seeking a certificate after the judgment is entered.  The party seeking a certificate must file a motion within fourteen days after entry of the judgment; if that motion is not granted within thirty days after the motion's filing date, it is deemed denied.  No certificate may be entered more than forty-five days after the judgment or more than thirty days after the motion's filing, whichever is later.

What does that all do to the filing deadline for the notice of appeal?  The proposed change to Rule 4(a) addresses this.  If adopted, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days from entry of the judgment appealed or entry of the Rule 54(b) certificate.  The deadline for filing a notice of cross-appeal is also addressed.

You really should read this second per curiam, including the proposed Reporter's Notes.  Comments on the proposal can be made to the Clerk of the Courts until August 1, 2026.

The Arkansas Bar Association's Annual Meeting is next week.  Stay tuned - there may be something to report from there.

Thank you for reading.

Opinion highlights for the week of May 24, 2026

 

Each of our appellate courts handed down one decision this week.  The Arkansas Supreme Court also issued two per curiam orders.  Otherwise, the Arkansas Court of Appeals did not issue any orders resolving motions; neither court's docket listed any motions or cases submitted for decision.

These abbreviated dockets may be because this is a short, holiday week.  Or, they may further signal that summer break is near.

In any event, neither opinion issued this week contains anything of interest to this blog - there are no appellate practice or process tips to ponder.

My intent is to wade through the Court of Appeals decisions issued last week, but that will take a bit.  Check back here next week - maybe we'll know something more about summer break's timing, or have other opinions to note.

Have a great weekend!

Summer break clues - and no invited amicus, yet

 

The Court of Appeals' May 20, 2026, docket offers at least two clues that summer break is near: (1) there are forty-five decisions listed, an unusually high number only seen near the end of a term; and (2) no new cases were submitted for decision.

It will take me a bit to work through these.  If summer break is upon us, please check back here for opinion highlights - surely there's something of interest to this blog in that many decisions.

The Supreme Court did issue a docket yesterday, but no decisions were announced.  Three cases were submitted for decision.  In the past, summer break did not always commence at the same time for our two appellate courts.

Remember my April 7, 2026, post about a request for the Supreme Court to appoint an invited amicus for Sanders v. Arkansas Board of Corrections, CV-25-742?  The argument was that no party wanted to defend the trial court's decision below, so, following United States Supreme Court practice, our Supreme Court should appoint someone to defend that decision.  (See that April 7, 2026, post for more background.)

Yesterday, the Supreme Court remanded the case for the trial court to "consider" a dispositive joint motion.  In that context, the Supreme Court also "dismissed" two motions to appoint an invited amicus.

It is interesting to me that the court did not deny the motions - they were merely dismissed.  What does this mean in terms of the law of the case?  Could an invited amicus be requested at the trial court level upon remand, and again if another appeal ensues?  Stay tuned!

Enjoy your Memorial Day weekend.

Opinion highlights for the week of May 10, 2026

 

The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down seventeen decisions on May 13, 2026.  The Arkansas Supreme Court did not issue any opinions this week.  We will note a couple of those Court of Appeals decisions in this post.

Hopping v. Scarborough, 2026 Ark. App. 303, involves a child-custody dispute.  One of Hopping's issues on appeal challenged the trial court's award of attorney's fees to Scarborough.  She asked the Court of Appeals to "require a reviewable basis" for the award and to overturn Tiner v. Tiner, 2012 Ark. App. 483, 422 S.W.3d 178.  In making its award, the trial court considered the fee petition and its attachments, Hopping's response, and the factors set forth in Chrisco as modified for domestic relations cases.

The majority agreed with Hopping, remanded the case, and overruled Tiner.  "[E]very decision awarding fees in a domestic-relations case, regardless of the basis on which the court is authorized to award it, should provide this court with findings sufficient to enable it to complete a meaningful review of the fee award." Hopping, 2026 Ark. App. 303, at 10.  In the majority's view, the trial court explained the basis for its award in a "conclusory" fashion.

Simply put, the court’s order does not provide this court with any reasoning on which the court’s fee award can be effectively evaluated. ... There very well may be a rational basis to support the court’s conclusion, but without any explanation from the circuit court as to its reasoning behind the award of fees, we are unable to properly perform our appellate function of evaluating whether the court’s award constituted an abuse of discretion. Consequently, in light of the record before us, we must reverse.

Id. at 13.  The case was reversed and remanded for reconsideration of the fee award, and, to the extent it conflicted with the majority's opinion, the Court of Appeals overruled Tiner.

A dissent contended that the trial court followed precedent in making its fee award.  It also argued that the majority substituted its judgment for that of the trial court.

This issue is an interesting basis for bringing an appeal - did the trial court adequately explain its reasoning, so that the appellate court can perform its function of meaningfully reviewing the trial court's decision?  Both opinions in Hopping - the majority and dissent - are worth your time.

Greenwood v. Greenwood, 2026 Ark. App. 306, involved an appeal from an order of protection.  The Court of Appeals dismissed in part for lack of a final order.  While orders of protection entered under Ark. Code Ann. section 9-15-205 can be appealed as final orders, the order of protection involved here contemplated further action - child support was to be determined in a supplemental order, which was not in the record.

Therefore, because the order of protection contemplates further judicial action and there is no certificate complying with Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), we must dismiss the appeal in part regarding the order of protection... without prejudice for lack of a final order.

Greenwood, 2026 Ark. App. 306, at 18-19.

Thank you for reading.