Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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

Appellant sued Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (SFB) for breach of contract. SFB answered, alleging that Appellant’s claims were spurious and were made for an improper purpose. The circuit court granted summary judgment to SFB, concluding that Appellant had filed a frivolous claim against SFB without proper and reasonable investigation and imposed sanctions in the form of awarding attorney’s fees to SFB. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees because he did not prevail on the issue of his entitlement to the payment of a sum he sought; and (2) because SFB failed to comply with the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 11 in seeking Rule 11 sanctions, the circuit court erred in imposing Rule 11 sanctions. View "Swindle v. State" on Justia Law

Appellants received a credit card, and Appellee was the assignee of the credit-card account. When the account went unpaid, Appellee filed a complaint seeking a judgment against Appellants. Appellants were served with process. The summons correctly stated the time period in which an in-state defendant and an out-of-state defendant had to file an answer but incorrectly stated the time period in which an incarcerated defendant had to file an answer. Appellants were not incarcerated. When Appellants did not answer the complaint, the circuit court entered a default judgment in favor of Appellee. Appellants filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, arguing that the summons was defective on its face and did not strictly comply with Ark. R. Civ. P. 4 because of the incorrect response time related to incarcerated defendants. In response, Appellee asserted that because Appellants’ response time was correctly listed on the summons, the summons complied with Rule 4. The circuit court denied Appellants’ motion. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Appellee’s summons contained an incorrect response time, it failed to strictly comply with Rule 4(b), and therefore, service upon Appellants was improper. View "Earls v. Harvest Credit Mgmt. VI-B LLC" on Justia Law

Appellants, Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, filed a motion to intervene in a class-action suit filed by Appellees, purchasers of surplus-lines insurance. Named as defendants were Arkansas surplus-lines-insurance brokers. According to Appellees, the defendants improperly placed contracts of insurance with persons who were not insurers approved by the Arkansas Insurance Commissioner. Appellants asserted that they had subscribed to multiple insurance policies issues to Appellees during the relevant time period and that they had significant interests in the suit because Appellees sought to void multiple insurance contracts to which Appellants subscribed as real parties in interest. Appellants also generally denied the allegation of the class-action complaint, including the allegation that the insurance contracts were voidable. The circuit court denied Appellants’ motion to intervene. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the circuit court erred in ruling that Appellants were too amorphous to allow intervention; and (2) Appellants met the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2), which must be demonstrated when a party seeks to intervene as a matter of right. View "Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's, London" on Justia Law