This last week of the 2025 Fall Term was productive. On December 7, 2025, the Arkansas Court of Appeals handed down twenty-two decisions. The next day, the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down six decisions along with a number of administrative per curiam opinions. We'll look at one of those Supreme Court decisions and one of those Court of Appeals decisions.
Matthews v. State, 2025 Ark. 213, raises a couple of points relevant here. The first is a fairly standard rejection of an argument not made in a motion for directed verdict. "Matthews did not make this argument in his directed-verdict motion, and it is not preserved for review. As such, we do not reach [his] identification argument...." Id. at 5 (citations omitted).
Of more interest is the second point, a concurring opinion's disagreement with the majority's framing of the standard of review. After quoting the majority's statement, found id. at 4-5, the concurring justice wrote:
[T]his is an incomplete rendering of our standard. For over forty years, this court has consistently held that in reviewing whether substantial evidence supports a verdict on direct appeal, while we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we do so upon a consideration of only the evidence that supports the verdict.
Id. at 8 (emphasis in original). The concurring justice noted long-standing adherence to the italicized language; the court "must be careful not to stray from our longstanding precedent until it gives a result that is so patently wrong or manifestly unjust that a break becomes unavoidable." Id. at 9. One other justice joined this concurrence.
Turning to the Court of Appeals, Walters v. Estate of Dockman, 2025 Ark. App. 595, involved application of an Arkansas Supreme Court decision previously causing some consternation on the lower appellate court. The trial court stated that a case was "closed" without ruling on a pending contempt motion. This implicated the Court of Appeals' jurisdiction - was the order appealed a final, appealable order?
The Court of Appeals held that it did have jurisdiction, citing Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(a)(2) and McCain Mall v. Nick's Bar Louie, Inc., 2025 Ark. App. 505. This latter case was previously discussed on this blog: https://areylaw.blogspot.com/2025/11/opinion-highlights-for-week-of-october.html Here, the Court of Appeals majority opinion in Walters summarized and applied McCain Mall as follows:
[When McCain Mall was originally before the Court of Appeals] this court held that an appealed order was not final due to outstanding claims and
counterclaims. McCain Mall petitioned the supreme court for review of this court’s
decision and argued that, notwithstanding the pending claims and counterclaims, the circuit
court’s order to the clerk “to close this case to further filings” made the order appealable
pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 2(a)(2), which provides that an appeal may be taken from
an order that, in effect, determines the action and prevents a judgment from which an appeal
might be taken or discontinues the action. The supreme court apparently agreed with McCain Mall’s argument, and in a docket entry, it vacated this court’s opinion and
remanded to this court for a decision on the merits.
Here, the circuit court did not rule on the contempt motion; however, it specifically
addressed the motion, found the contempt motion was “not pending,” and declared the
case “closed.” Pursuant to the supreme court’s cue in McCain Mall, we hold that these
findings by the circuit court confer appellate jurisdiction in this case.
Walters, 2025 Ark. App. 595, at 9-10. (My apologies for the long block quote - but that summarizes the point better than I could.)
A dissenting opinion in Walters disagreed with the majority's application of McCain Mall. It contended that the wording of the order in the latter case prevented an appealable judgment, but the wording of the order here did not. The dissent also believed that the contempt matter remained alive.
That's enough for this Tuesday before Christmas. With this post, I am caught up following my October vacation. Over the next couple of weeks, I'll try to get to other matters before opinions start appearing again, such as rules changes recently issued.
Thanks for reading - and Merry Christmas!
