Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Boyle Ventures, LLC (Boyle) operates franchised retail pet stores selling cats and dogs from USDA-regulated breeders. After obtaining a business license in Fayetteville, the City Council passed Ordinance No. 6587, prohibiting such sales unless the animals were obtained from approved shelters or rescue organizations. Boyle filed suit against the City, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Ordinance violated Arkansas statutes, injunctive relief, and damages under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. The parties agreed to a temporary restraining order, preventing the Ordinance from taking effect. Before the circuit court could rule, the City repealed the Ordinance, rendering the declaratory relief moot. The circuit court ultimately ruled in favor of the City, finding the Ordinance conflicted with state law but that the City was protected by qualified immunity.The Benton County Circuit Court dismissed Boyle's complaint, finding that the Ordinance conflicted with state law but that the City was immune from damages as it did not violate clearly established constitutional rights. Boyle appealed, arguing the Ordinance violated the Arkansas Constitution and that the City was not immune from damages. The City cross-appealed, arguing the Ordinance did not violate state law.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and held that the circuit court erred in finding the Ordinance violated state law because it never went into effect and did not deprive Boyle of any rights or cause damages. Consequently, the court reversed the circuit court's decision on the cross-appeal and remanded for dismissal. The direct appeal and any remaining issues were dismissed as moot. View "BOYLE VENTURES, LLC V. CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE" on Justia Law

In 2018, Jodeci K. Norvel entered a negotiated guilty plea and received an eighteen-year sentence for battery in the first degree and possession of firearms by certain persons. His sentencing order included a note that he had two prior residential burglaries and should serve flat time. Norvel later filed a petition for declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus, arguing that under Act 683 of 2023, he was eligible for parole because his sentencing order did not expressly designate that he was sentenced under the relevant statute.The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted Norvel’s petition, finding that Act 683 applied to him and that he was eligible for parole. The court determined that Norvel’s sentencing order did not contain an express designation under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-609(b)(2)(B), as required by the statute.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court’s decision. The court held that the notation on Norvel’s sentencing order did not constitute an express designation that he was sentenced under section 16-93-609. The court emphasized that the statute requires a clear and unmistakable reference to the specific section, which was not present in Norvel’s sentencing order. The court also rejected the appellants’ argument that the circuit court’s interpretation of Act 683 led to absurd results contrary to legislative intent, citing its previous decision in Rodgers v. Arkansas Parole Board. Consequently, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s order, granting Norvel the relief he sought. View "ARKANSAS POST-PRISON TRANSFER BOARD v. NORVEL" on Justia Law

Amber Dawn Waterman was charged in Benton County, Arkansas, with two counts of premeditated and deliberated capital murder for the deaths of Ashley Bush and her unborn child, Valkyrie Grace Willis. Waterman had previously pleaded guilty in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri to kidnapping resulting in death and kidnapping resulting in the death of an unborn child. She was sentenced to two life sentences in federal court.In the Benton County Circuit Court, Waterman entered pleas of not guilty and former jeopardy, and filed a motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-114 and the Arkansas Constitution. The circuit court denied her motion, finding that the state charges were not barred by double jeopardy.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the federal and state charges each required proof of different facts and were intended to prevent substantially different harms or evils. The federal charges required proof of kidnapping and interstate transport, while the state charges required proof of premeditated and deliberated intent to cause death. Therefore, the prosecution in Arkansas was not barred by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-114.Additionally, the court declined Waterman's request to interpret the Arkansas Constitution's double jeopardy provision more broadly than the federal provision, thereby upholding the dual sovereignty doctrine. The court concluded that the Arkansas Constitution does not prohibit Waterman’s state prosecution under these circumstances. The decision of the Benton County Circuit Court was affirmed. View "WATERMAN v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

On June 7, 2021, Sharmaine Atkinson took her two minor cousins to their aunt’s house, where they encountered Keundre Parker and three others. After returning to the house later, Atkinson heard Parker exclaim, “That’s the car,” followed by gunfire. Atkinson identified Parker as one of the shooters. The gunfire resulted in the death of one minor and injuries to others. Parker was charged with capital murder and four counts of aggravated assault.The Jefferson County Circuit Court denied Parker’s motion for a directed verdict, which argued that the identification was unreliable due to darkness. The court also denied Parker’s request for jury instructions on lesser-included offenses of manslaughter, negligent homicide, and first-degree assault, finding them unsupported by the facts. The jury convicted Parker on all charges, sentencing him to life in prison plus fourteen years.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. Parker argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the circuit court erred in denying his requests for lesser-included-offense instructions. The court found that Atkinson’s testimony, corroborated by other evidence, provided substantial evidence to support the convictions. The court also held that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying the lesser-included-offense instructions, as the evidence did not support a rational basis for those instructions.The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding no prejudicial error in the record. View "PARKER v. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

Devon Romick was convicted by a jury of raping MV, a five-year-old minor, and was sentenced to life in prison. The incident occurred on July 12, 2023, when MV’s mother walked in on Romick sexually assaulting her daughter. MV’s mother immediately took MV to the police, and MV was later examined by a sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE nurse), Bethany Greene. Greene conducted two physical exams of MV, finding no remarkable physical evidence of abuse, which she explained was not unusual in child sexual abuse cases.The Crawford County Circuit Court heard the case, where MV’s mother and MV testified about the sexual assaults. Greene also testified about her examinations and findings. Romick objected to Greene’s testimony, arguing that it constituted improper expert testimony without her being certified as an expert.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case. Romick’s appeal focused on the claim that the trial court erred by allowing Greene to give expert testimony without being certified as an expert. The Supreme Court found that Romick failed to contemporaneously object to most of Greene’s statements, preserving only one statement for review. The court held that Greene’s testimony about a 2009 study was permissible lay testimony under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 701, as it was rationally based on her perception and helpful to understanding her testimony.The court also concluded that even if Greene’s testimony was considered improper expert testimony, any error in admitting it was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of Romick’s guilt, including MV’s detailed testimony and Romick’s inconsistent statements. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Romick’s conviction and sentence. View "ROMICK V. STATE OF ARKANSAS" on Justia Law

Michael and Susan Gates failed to file individual or corporate tax returns from 2012 to 2017. Mr. Gates pled no contest to one count of failing to file or pay taxes and was ordered to file tax returns for 2015, 2016, and 2017. The Department of Finance and Administration (DFA) audited these returns and found that the Gateses had not properly calculated their tax liability. The Gateses disputed this determination, submitted additional documentation, and DFA adjusted its calculations but still found the Gateses owed taxes. The Gateses continued to dispute the amount, leading to this lawsuit.The Garland County Circuit Court initially granted summary judgment in favor of DFA, but this decision was reversed and remanded by a higher court, which found that DFA had not adequately explained its calculations. On remand, DFA provided detailed evidence of its calculations and disallowances, and the circuit court again granted summary judgment in favor of DFA, noting the Gateses' failure to meaningfully respond to the new evidence.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that DFA had met its prima facie burden by providing detailed evidence of the Gateses' net taxable income and tax liability for 2015, 2016, and 2017. The Gateses failed to meet their burden of proof by not providing specific facts to dispute DFA's calculations. The court concluded that the Gateses' general references to a large volume of documents were insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact. The court did not address the Gateses' evidentiary objections, as it found that even considering the disputed documents, summary judgment was still appropriate. View "GATES v. HUDSON" on Justia Law

Dennis Hale was convicted of raping his step-granddaughter, a minor, starting when she was eight years old. The abuse was reported by the victim to her teachers in September 2021, leading to Hale's arrest and charge in Sevier County. Initially represented by a public defender, Hale later had LaTonya Austin appointed as his attorney due to a conflict. Hale filed multiple pro se motions expressing his desire to represent himself, which the court eventually granted after multiple hearings and warnings about the risks of self-representation. Austin was appointed as standby counsel.The Sevier County Circuit Court found Hale guilty of rape based on the victim's detailed testimony and corroborating evidence, including items found during a search of Hale's property. Hale was sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed, arguing insufficient evidence, improper waiver of his right to counsel, and error in appointing Austin as standby counsel.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case. It held that the victim's testimony alone constituted substantial evidence to support the conviction, as corroborated by physical evidence. The court found that Hale knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel, having been repeatedly warned of the dangers of self-representation. The court also determined that Hale's conduct at trial did not prevent a fair and orderly exposition of the issues. Finally, the court ruled that there is no constitutional right to choose standby counsel, and Hale had agreed to Austin's appointment.The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed Hale's conviction and life sentence, finding no reversible errors in the proceedings. View "Hale v. State" on Justia Law

A student, C.S., transferred from one high school to another within the Fort Smith School District and was rendered ineligible to participate in sports for one year due to the district's policy on intradistrict transfers. This policy contrasts with the immediate eligibility granted to students transferring from outside the district. Vincent Standridge, C.S.'s father, challenged this policy, arguing it violated state law, equal protection, parental rights, and constituted an abuse of power.The Sebastian County Circuit Court dismissed Standridge's complaint, holding that the policy did not violate Arkansas Code subsection 6-18-1904(f), which the court interpreted as applying only to interdistrict transfers. The court also found no constitutional violations or abuse of power.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and reversed the circuit court's decision in part. The Supreme Court held that Arkansas Code subsection 6-18-1904(f) applies to both intra- and interdistrict transfers, thus prohibiting the district's policy of excluding intradistrict transfer students from sports based solely on their transfer status. The court remanded the case for entry of judgment in Standridge's favor on this statutory claim.However, the Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Standridge's equal protection, parental rights, and abuse of power claims. The court found that the district's policy had a rational basis and did not violate equal protection. It also held that there is no constitutional right to participate in sports and that the policy did not interfere with parental rights. The court concluded that there is no recognized claim for "abuse of power" in this context.The Supreme Court directed the clerk to issue the mandate immediately to allow C.S. to participate in extracurricular activities before the end of the spring semester. View "STANDRIDGE V. FORT SMITH PUBLIC SCHOOLS" on Justia Law

Kenneth Tilley sought financing from Malvern National Bank (MNB) for a real estate development project in 2009 and 2010, totaling $350,000. Tilley claimed MNB engaged in unfair dealings and sued for breach of contract, promissory estoppel, violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (ADTPA), tortious interference, negligence, and fraud. The case has been appealed multiple times, with the Arkansas Supreme Court previously reversing decisions related to Tilley's right to a jury trial.Initially, the Garland County Circuit Court struck Tilley's jury demand, which was reversed by the Arkansas Supreme Court. After remand, the circuit court reinstated a bench trial verdict, citing Act 13 of 2018, which was again reversed by the Supreme Court. On the third remand, MNB moved for summary judgment on all claims. The circuit court granted summary judgment, citing Tilley's reduction of collateral as a material alteration of the agreement, a rationale not argued by MNB. Tilley appealed this decision.The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the circuit court did not violate the mandate by considering summary judgment. However, it was reversible error for the circuit court to grant summary judgment based on an unargued rationale. The Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment on Tilley's ADTPA, tortious interference, and negligence claims, finding no genuine issues of material fact. However, it reversed and remanded the summary judgment on Tilley's breach of contract, promissory estoppel, and fraud claims, determining that there were disputed material facts that required a jury trial. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Tilley v. Malvern National Bank" on Justia Law

Jonathan and Melissa Brizendine applied to become foster parents in January 2022. After completing their application, a DHS employee conducted a home visit and asked various questions, including about their religious affiliation. The Brizendines, who are non-religious, were also asked to provide additional information on Melissa’s PTSD and medical-marijuana use. On May 19, 2022, DHS denied their foster-parent application. The Brizendines filed a complaint on June 8, 2023, alleging that their application was denied due to their atheism and medical-marijuana use, claiming violations of the Arkansas Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Arkansas Medical Marijuana Amendment.The Pulaski County Circuit Court granted the State appellees' motion to dismiss, concluding that the Brizendines' complaint failed to state a claim under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and that the State appellees were entitled to sovereign immunity. The court found that the Brizendines did not plead sufficient facts to show that the State’s actions were illegal or unconstitutional.The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the case and affirmed the circuit court's decision. The court held that the Brizendines' complaint was speculative and did not meet the fact-pleading requirements necessary to overcome sovereign immunity. The court noted that the complaint lacked specific facts to support the claim that DHS denied the application based on religious preferences and medical-marijuana use. Additionally, the complaint did not establish any involvement of Governor Sanders or the Child Welfare Agency Review Board in the application process. Therefore, the State appellees were entitled to sovereign immunity, and the dismissal was affirmed. View "Brizendine v. Department of Human Services" on Justia Law