Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants filed a complaint for breach of contract, non-disclosure, rescission, damages, and negligence against Appellees. Appellants obtained a default judgment. Appellees moved to set aside the default judgment on the grounds that the summons was defective on its face. The circuit court granted the motion and set aside the default judgment due to the defective summons and resulting lack of personal jurisdiction over Appellees. Appellees then filed a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice on the grounds that service was never completed and that the savings statute did not apply. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court’s ruling setting aside the default judgment, as the summons failed strictly to comply with the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 4(b); and (2) reversed the dismissal with prejudice, holding that Appellants were entitled to the benefit of the savings statute. View "Jones v. Douglas" on Justia Law

Appellee filed a notice of appeal from a probate order approving a settlement agreement among Appellants. Upon Appellee’s motion, the circuit court extended the time to lodge the record. Appellee subsequently filed a motion asking the court to enter a nunc pro tunc order clarifying its findings of fact relating to the order granting the extension because that order did not include the findings required by Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 5(b). The circuit court entered the nunc pro tunc order. Appellants appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in entering the nunc pro tunc order because Rule 5(b) had not been complied with at the time the original motion for extension of time was granted. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the circuit court’s nunc pro tunc order, as the extension order complied with Rule 5(b); (2) affirmed the circuit court’s order approving the settlement agreement, as the settlement was in the best interest of the Estate of J.D. Ashley, Sr.; and (3) denied Appellants’ motion to dismiss Appellee’s appeal and their motion for sanctions, as Appellee timely lodged the record for his appeal and Appellee’s appeal was not frivolous. View "Ashley v. Ashley" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three Arkansas corporations that operate private hospitals in the state, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment seeking a judgment declaring the Arkansas Peer Review Fairness Act unconstitutional. The circuit court ruled that the Act is not unconstitutional. Defendants - the Attorney General, the Arkansas Department of Health, and Nathaniel Smith - appealed, arguing that there was no actual, present controversy in this case because there was no present danger or dilemma. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that this was not a proper declaratory judgment action because the necessary element of a justiciable controversy was lacking in this case. View "Baptist Health Sys. v. Rutledge" on Justia Law

Appellants filed a motion for rule on clerk, to file the record and have their appeal docketed. The clerk refused to docket the appeal on the grounds that the circuit court’s order granting an extension of time to lodge the record on appeal did not contain the required findings related to Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 5(b)(1). The Supreme Court remanded the matter to the circuit court for compliance with Rule 5(b)(1) because the extension order in this case did not contain all of the findings required by the rule and because there must be strict compliance with the rule. View "In re Estate of Frazier" on Justia Law

Appellant, by and through her attorney, filed a motion for rule on clerk to file the record and to have her appeal docketed. The clerk refused to docket the appeal on the grounds that it was untimely filed and because the circuit court’s order granting an extension of time to lodge the record on appeal did not contain the required language of Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 5(b)(1). The Supreme Court held (1) the record was timely tendered, but (2) the clerk was still correct in refusing to accept the record due to lack of compliance with Rule 5(b)(1). Remanded to the circuit court for compliance with Rule 5(b)(1). View "Baxter v. Wing" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a notice of appeal in the underlying matter. The circuit court granted Appellant’s motion for enlargement of time to file the transcript but denied Appellant’s second request for an extension of time to lodge the record. In denying Appellant’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, the circuit court concluded that the first order granting Appellant’s motion for enlargement of time failed to comply with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 5(b)(1) and was therefore void. The Supreme Court granted Appellant’s subsequent motion for rule on clerk. However, Appellee asserted that it was not aware of the motion for rule on clerk until counsel was electronically notified of the briefing schedule. Upon further review, the Supreme Court determined that the motion for rule on clerk was improvidently granted and dismissed the appeal. View "Granger v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Respondents filed suit against Petitioner, an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business in Faulkner County, alleging strict liability and negligence and seeking damages resulting from the noise, pollution, and vibrations of compressor stations owned and operated by Petitioner. The compressor stations were located in Van Buren County and White County. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of prohibition requesting that the Supreme Court issue the writ to prevent the circuit court from proceeding for lack of proper venue. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ of prohibition, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to a writ of prohibition where Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Faulker County was wholly without jurisdiction on the issue of venue. View "Desoto Gathering Co. v. Ramsey" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of sexual assault in the first degree and was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that defense counsel was ineffective on seven separate grounds. The circuit court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to assert that but for any alleged ineffectiveness on the part of counsel he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. View "Wood v. State" on Justia Law

Appellees brought this suit against the City of Little Rock for just compensation for the taking of Appellees’ property in connection with a modification of the I430/I630 Interchange. After a jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Appellees. The City filed a notice of appeal and later filed a motion for extension of time to lodge the record. The circuit court denied the motion for extension. The City subsequently filed a second motion for extension. A special judge granted an extension to lodge the record. Appellees filed an amended and substituted motion to dismiss, contending that the circuit court erred in granting the extension of time because the City did not strictly comply with the requirements of Ark. R. App. P-Civ. 5. The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, holding that the City failed strictly to comply with Rule 5, and therefore, the circuit court erred in granting the motion for extension of time to file the record. View "City of Little Rock v. Hermitage Dev. Corp." on Justia Law

Appellant entered into a contract with Contractor for the construction of a new home. At some point after the project had begun, the parties had a disagreement, and Appellant ordered that Contractor cease work on the project. Contractor filed a lien on Appellant’s property claiming he was entitled to $25,821 for the labor, services, and materials that he had arranged and for which he had already paid. Contractor then filed this suit praying for judgment in the same amount and requesting that his lien be given priority over Bank, which had provided financing for the construction project. The court temporarily sustained a mechanics’ and materialmen’s lien attached to Appellant’s property. Appellant filed an interlocutory appeal alleging jurisdiction pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(a)(5), which provides that an appeal may be taken from an order that sustains an attachment. Because the court’s order in this case was not an attachment within the meaning of this rule, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as an unauthorized interlocutory appeal. View "Denney v. Denney" on Justia Law