Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a jury trial, Appellant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to 480 months' imprisonment. The court of appeals affirmed. Appellant subsequently filed three postconviction petitions, one filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, the second for reduction of sentence under Ark. Code Ann. 16-90-111, and the third to correct an illegal sentence under 16-90-111. The trial court denied the petitions in one order and denied Appellant's two motions related to the Rule 37.1 petition in a second order. Appellant appealed both orders. Before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion for extension of time to file his brief-in-chief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and declared the motion moot, holding that the trial court correctly denied the petitions. View "Murphy v. State" on Justia Law

The circuit court terminated Appellant's parental rights to her three children. Appellant timely filed a notice of appeal and an amended notice of appeal. However, neither the notice of appeal or the amended notice of appeal contained Appellant's signature. The court of appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Appellant did not comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9(b)(1)(B). Appellant's counsel filed a motion for belated appeal, asserting that Appellant wished to appeal but lost contact with Appellant after the circuit court entered the termination order. The Supreme Court granted the motion for good cause. View "McPherson v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of rape, kidnapping, and first-degree terroristic threatening and sentenced to an aggregate term of life imprisonment. Appellant subsequently filed a pro se petition for postconviction relief, asserting that his defense counsel was ineffective for (1) failing to obtain and present testimony of a medical expert, (2) failing to investigate and present to the jury the lack of physical evidence in his case, (3) failing to present to the jury a timeline of events, and (4) failing to call Appellant as a witness on his own behalf. The circuit court denied the requested relief without an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not clearly err in holding that counsel's performance was not ineffective under the standard set forth in Strickland v. Washington. View "Hickey v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant received an injury during his employment with Appellee. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission denied Appellant's claim for benefits based on a finding that Appellant tested positive for illegal drugs after the injury and that he failed to rebut the statutory presumption that his injury was substantially occasioned by his drug use. Appellant appealed, contending (1) the Commission's decision was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the structure of the Commission was unconstitutional. Currently before the Supreme Court was Appellant's motion to supplement the record. The Court remanded to the Commission to settle the record with regard to certain affidavits and depositions. View "Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing" on Justia Law

Decedent became a resident of Golden Living Center, a nursing home, in 2009. Later that year, Courtyard Gardens took over ownership and operation of the facility. Thereafter, Decedent's son, Ronald Quarles signed a new admission agreement and optional arbitration agreement. In 2011, Kenny Quarles, another of Decedent's sons acting as power of attorney, filed an amended complaint against Courtyard Gardens and other entities associated with it and the Center, seeking damages for negligence, medical malpractice, and violations of the Arkansas Long-Term Care Residents' Act. Courtyard Gardens filed a motion to dismiss and compel arbitration. The circuit court denied Courtyard Garden's motion to compel arbitration, concluding that questions of fact remained regarding Ronald's authority to bind Decedent to the arbitration agreement. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of the motion to compel arbitration, holding that there was no valid arbitration agreement as a matter of law because Ronald had neither actual authority nor statutory authority to enter into the arbitration agreement on Decedent's behalf. View "Courtyard Gardens Health & Rehab., LLC v. Quarles" on Justia Law

Pulaski County issued an assessment and taxation of property owned by the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS). On behalf of UAMS, Appellant (the University) filed a tax-exemption application seeking an exemption from ad valorem property taxes based on sovereign immunity. The county assessor's office and county equalization board denied the request. The county court also denied the exemption. On appeal, the circuit court denied the University's motion for summary judgment and subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Supreme Court dismissed the University's interlocutory appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the University failed to establish an exception to the general rule that the denial of a motion for summary judgment is neither reviewable nor appealable. View "Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of Ark. v. Pulaski County" on Justia Law

SEECO, Inc. owned oil-and-gas leases and possessed rights authorizing it to explore for and develop minerals from several tracts of land. SEECO filed an interpleader action to determine the ownership of the oil, gas, and minerals in the land. Appellee requested that the circuit court quiet title and confirm title in Appellees. Several defendants were named in the action. The circuit court ruled that a 1929 mineral deed, even with a blank left empty in the granting clause, conveyed one hundred percent of the mineral interest in three tracts of land to J.S. Martin. Appellees included the Stanton Group, as Martin's heirs and successors in interest, and SEECO. Appellants appealed, arguing that the 1929 mineral deed was void because the description of the interest was so vague that it was unenforceable. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the 1929 mineral deed was unambiguous, and the circuit court did not err by refusing to consider the parol evidence of a subsequent 1930 deed. View "Barton Land Servs., Inc. v. SEECO, Inc." on Justia Law

Alpha Marketing brought this cause of action against the Arkansas Lottery Commission seeking declaratory relief that Alpha's registered trademarks of "Arkansas Lottery," "Arkansas Lotto," and "Lottery Arkansas" were valid and that it held exclusive rights to use them. Alpha also sought injunctive relief enjoining the Commission's alleged acts of trademark infringement and monetary damages. Alpha later amended its complaint, alleging ultra vires acts and an unconstitutional taking. The Commission filed a motion to dismiss Alpha's lawsuit on the basis that the Commission had sovereign immunity from the trademark-infringement claims. The circuit court denied the motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Commission was an entity of the State entitled to the defense of sovereign immunity; (2) Alpha's claims for injunctive, monetary, and declaratory relief were barred by the defense of sovereign immunity; (3) the exceptions for waiver; ultra vires, arbitrary, capricious, or bad-faith acts; and takings did not apply. View "Ark. Lottery Comm'n v. Alpha Mktg." on Justia Law

In 2008, Plaintiff was hired as the chief of police for the City of McRae. The Mayor terminated Plaintiff's employment in 2009 for allegedly falsifying fire-department records and for insubordination. The city council voted not to overturn the Mayor's decision to terminate Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a complaint in 2009 against the City, the Mayor, and City alderman, asserting (1) Defendants failed to comply with the provisions of the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act because they did not give sufficient notice of the city council meeting; (2) Plaintiff's due process rights were violated; (3) the Mayor's termination of Plaintiff's employment violated her rights under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act; and (4) Plaintiff's termination without just cause violated her rights under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on each of Plaintiff's claims, asserting that they were entitled to qualified immunity. The circuit court denied the summary judgment motion. The Mayor appealed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in not granting the Mayor qualified immunity on the claims brought by Plaintiff. Remanded. View "Sullivan v. Coney" on Justia Law

Appellee pleaded guilty to first-degree false imprisonment and aggravated assault. Appellee subsequently filed a petition for writ of error coram nobis, asking the circuit court to vacate the entry of his guilty plea due to a lack of advice from counsel about immigration consequences as required under Padilla v. Kentucky. After multiple hearings, the circuit court granted the petition and vacated Appellee's guilty pleas and sentence. The State appealed, contending that the circuit court erred as a matter of law by expanding the grounds for a writ of error coram nobis to include claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the result of the circuit court's decision was to improperly expand the grounds for coram-nobis relief to include claims for ineffective assistance of counsel, and therefore the court erred as a matter of law in granting the writ. View "State v. Tejeda-Acosta" on Justia Law