Opinion highlights for the week of November 3, 2024

The Arkansas Supreme Court didn't hand down any decisions yesterday, but it did dispose of a number of motions.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down 21 decisions.  Two of them meet my rough criteria for summarizing here.

Leaf Home Solutions v. Kunkel, 2024 Ark. App. 547, is a workers' compensation case.  After briefing was completed, the worker filed a motion to dismiss arguing that the Workers' Compensation Commission's order appealed from was interlocutory so that the appellate court lacked jurisdiction.

While WCC orders are ordinarily reviewable upon awarding or denying compensation - and "interlocutory decisions and decisions on incidental matters are not reviewable for lack of finality" - appealable orders are not limited to those that finally dispose of an entire case.  "[T]he test for determining whether a Commission order is appealable is whether it puts the Commission's directive into execution, ending the litigation or a separable part of it."  Id. at 5.

In this case, the WCC reversed an order compelling the worker to undergo a functional capacity examination; no issues were reserved in the order, nor was there a remand for further proceedings.  The Court of Appeals concluded:

Nothing before us indicates that there is anything left to resolve or any further action contemplated by the order on appeal.  Thus, we have jurisdiction to address the merits of the case.

Id. at 7-8.  The motion to dismiss was denied.

In Taylor v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 555, the Appellant argued that the State didn't negate his justification defense.  The Court of Appeals determined that his argument wasn't preserved for review because it "was not specifically argued in his motion for directed verdict."  Id. at 3.  The Appellant's motion for directed verdict after the State rested claimed the State had not met its burden of proof; his renewed motion perhaps referenced self-defense.  Id. at 2.  This was not sufficient to preserve the issue for appeal: "there was no focused argument regarding any specific element that the State failed to disprove...."  Id. at 4.

Comments are welcome - have a great weekend!

Eighth Circuit Judicial Conference, July 30 - August 1, 2025

This landed in my inbox just now.  The agenda isn't available yet, but this is a great opportunity to hear from and mingle with Eighth Circuit judges, appellate practitioners, and others.  See below for more information.

Opinion highlights for the week of October 27, 2024

The Supreme Court of Arkansas handed down five decisions yesterday.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down twenty decisions on Wednesday.  Three of those Court of Appeals decisions shed some light on appellate practice; two address the finality of trial court decisions for the purpose of appeal, and one illustrates the necessity for addressing every basis for the trial court's decision when the trial court relies on alternate independent grounds.

Christian v. SWO Properties, 2024 Ark. App. 524, involved an appeal from a contempt finding based on the Appellants' failure to vacate certain property.  Among other arguments, the Appellants claimed there was not a final order in the underlying unlawful detainer case because the order contemplated further action before the trial court.  The court disagreed:

[The] order entered in the unlawful-detainer suit between these litigants was a final, appealable order because it addressed the issues presented by the parties and reserved no issues for later determination. It simply allowed an avenue for judicial resolution of damages if the future need arose. ... [Language in the order] served to extinguish all outstanding claims, counterclaims, and pending motions and ended the litigation, thus making it a final, appealable order.

Christian, 2024 Ark. App. 524, at 10.

In Roe v. Somach, 2024 Ark. App. 527, the trial court entered an order granting a default judgment, striking an amended answer, and stating that damages against the Appellants would be determined in a subsequent trial.  The appeal was from this order - damages had not yet been determined.  This was a final order for purposes of appeal.

Ordinarily, a judgment or order is not final and appealable if the issue of damages remains to be decided.  When, however, a default judgment that does not resolve damages is coupled with an order striking an answer, an appeal may be taken. [A decision of the Supreme Court] held that the specific provision in Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure-Civil 2(a)(4) that allows an appeal from an order that strikes all or part of an answer controls over the more general rule of Rule 2(a)(1), which requires a "final judgment."

Roe, 2024 Ark. App. 527, at 4 n.1 (citations omitted).

Finally, in Shields v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 520, the trial court revoked the Appellant's probation on multiple grounds.  He did not challenge all of these grounds on appeal.  The Court of Appeals noted the rule: "When a trial court bases its decision on alternate, independent grounds, and the appellant challenges only one of those grounds, we will affirm without addressing the merits of either." Id. at 4.  For that reason, and the Appellant's admitted violations, revocation was affirmed.