Opinion highlights for the week of October 19, 2025

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court's October 23, 2025, docket did not report any decisions.  The Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down twenty-three opinions on October 22, 2025.  Although there are other candidates, let's look at three of those opinions.

McDonnell v. Estate of Chance, 2025 Ark. App. 488, involved an appeal in a probate case.  The probate court denied McDonnell's claim against the estate with prejudice.  Subsequent to this denial, the probate court approved a final distribution and closed the administration of the estate.  McDonnell filed her notice of appeal a few days after the probate court's final actions.

The Court of Appeals dismissed McDonnell's appeal as moot.  "Our supreme court has held that mootness is a threshold issue that precedes even the issue of subject-matter jurisdiction." Id. at 6.  The court noted that McDonnell had not posted a supersedeas bond and obtained a stay of the probate court's orders, as permitted under Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 8(c)(1).  Nor did she petition to reopen the estate under Ark. Code Ann. 28-53-119(a)(1) and Ark. R. Civ. P. 60.  Thus, the Court of Appeals found that the appeal was moot - with McDonnell's claim denied and the estate closed, no existing legal controversy remained.  The appeal was dismissed.

The appeal in Smith v. City of El Dorado, 2025 Ark. App. 490, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  Smith's notice of appeal was due "in early March"; he moved for an extension of time in the trial court to file his notice of appeal.  On April 17, the circuit court extended the deadline to May 16.  Smith filed his notice of appeal on May 15.

The Court of Appeals noted that timely filings of a notice of appeal and the record are jurisdictional prerequisites for the court.  Under Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 4(b)(3), the trial court could extend the thirty-day deadline - but only for fourteen days, not the month-long extension granted here.  The notice of appeal should have been due May 1, under a proper extension; here, it was too late when filed on May 15.

An order terminating parental rights was appealed in Lindsey v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2025 Ark. App. 491.  While setting out the standard of review - de novo review of the appellate record - the court issued this warning:

Typically, most of the appellate record is the testimony and evidence at the termination hearing.  It does not include things (for example) that no one asked about at the termination hearing because everyone had heard the evidence in previous hearings.  Although we affirm as to both parents, we advise the Arkansas Department of Human Services (DHS) that affirming grounds for termination was a close call - perhaps necessarily, perhaps not - because the proof it offered on important points was terse, if not conclusory.

Id. at 2 (emphasis added).  The court gave this example in a footnote: "[I]n a case where parental drug use was an issue, we should not have had to scour the record to identify the drug as methamphetamine." Id. at 2 n.1.

Something to keep in mind while assembling the record and drafting that Statement of the Case and Facts.

Thank you for reading!

Opinion highlights for the week of October 12, 2025

 

The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down five opinions on October 16, 2025; the Arkansas Court of Appeals did not issue any opinions this week.  Two Supreme Court decisions are of interest here.

Weatherford v. State, 2025 Ark. 150, involved an appeal of convictions for murder, residential burglary, and theft of property.  Among other claims, Weatherford argued on appeal that the State did not prove all of the residential burglary elements.  Citing Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(a), the Supreme Court declined to address this argument because it was not presented to the trial court: "[T]he record demonstrates that Weatherford based his directed-verdict motion on different grounds from those raised on appeal." Weatherford, 2025 Ark. 150, at 10.

Weatherford also argued that no testimony supported a sentencing enhancement for committing murder in front of a child.  Again citing Rule 33.1(a), the Supreme Court declined to address this argument: "[A]lthough Weatherford moved for a directed verdict on the sentence enhancement at the close of the State's case, he did not renew this motion at the close of all the evidence." Weatherford, 2025 Ark. 150, at 13.  Thus, the argument was waived.

Hause v. City of Fayetteville, 2025 Ark. 156, involved an appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction.  The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court on this point.  Note this language from the majority opinion:

The constitutional questions are disputed, and the law on this issue remains unsettled. We cannot resolve them at this preliminary stage, and the uncertainty does not justify reversing the denial of a preliminary injunction. We reserve judgment until the circuit court addresses the merits, so that any clarification or development of the law can be made on a fully developed record through the normal appellate process.

Id. at 8. A dissent joined by two other judges took the majority to task for not resolving these issues in the instant appeal. 

[T]he majority begins by inventing a new rule that we cannot decide "novel" or "disputed" constitutional or legal questions at the preliminary-injunction stage. ... That's not the law, and I cannot join the majority's newfound approach to reviewing preliminary-injunction decisions.

Id. at 10.

Hause provides another argument against reversing a trial court's preliminary injunction decision, pro or con: the appellate court shouldn't act on the underlying issues until the record is developed.

Thanks for reading! 

 

Readers may recall that I attended the National Legal Aid and Defender Association's 2025 Appellate Defender Training earlier this year in Massachusetts.  Although a bit ideological at times, this was by far the best appellate training I have ever experienced.  The tips for handling criminal appeals are priceless.  As I hoped, some of the lessons are proving useful for my civil appeals, too.

This training will be just next door in Mississippi on January 13-16, 2026.  That's a real opportunity for Arkansas appellate attorneys.  If you are interested in registering, you can follow the site to see when registration opens, here: https://www.nlada.org/adt-2026-save-the-date  And if you want to go, keep up and register soon - these programs fill up fast.