Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In a per curiam order, the Supreme Court found that court reporter Sheila Russell failed to comply with a writ of certiorari issued by the Court for the completion of the record in the above-captioned case. The Court ordered Russell to appear to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for her failure to comply with the writ. Russell appeared before the Court and entered a plea of not guilty. Accordingly, the Court appointed a special master to conduct a hearing on the matter and to make findings of fact. After a hearing, the special master found that Russell’s failure to comply with the writ was not justified and was contrary to her duties as an official court reporter. The Supreme Court accepted the findings of the special master and held Russell in contempt of court for willfully failing to prepare the instant record in a timely manner and in accordance with the directive of the Court. View "James Tree & Crane Serv., Inc. v. Fought" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court appointed a special master to conduct a hearing and to make findings of fact as to whether court reporter Sheila Russell should be held in contempt for failing to comply with a writ of certiorari issued by the Court. In this order, the Court noted that Russell had not completed the records in other cases and directed the special master to inquire into the status of the record preparation in the other appeals. Thereafter, Marlow Properties LLC and Daria Marlow filed the present motion to intervene in the proceedings before the special master, representing that their appeal was one of the other appeals involving Russell. The Supreme Court denied the motion with prejudice, as the parties’ appeal could not go forward where Marlow Properites failed to lodge the record for appeal within the time provided by the rules. View "James Tree & Crane Serv., Inc. v. Fought" on Justia Law

Harold Planchon filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, but Planchon died before the case was submitted. Planchon’s attorney filed a motion for revivor and substitution or, in the alternative, to remand to the circuit court for entry of such an order. The Supreme Court (1) denied the motion to grant revivor and substitution, as there is no rule governing substitution on appeal; but (2) granted the motion to remand to the circuit court for Planchon’s representatives to seek relief there. View "Planchon v. Local Police & Fire Ret. Sys." on Justia Law

Appellant filed a civil rights complaint against the circuit court clerk and a deputy clerk (together, Defendants) seeking declaratory judgment and money damages. Appellant subsequently filed a motion for Defendants to produce certain documents and a motion for default judgment. The circuit court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on the ground that no summons had been issued or served, and the motions were declared moot. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the complaint where the record on appeal did not reflect that summonses were ever issued or served in this matter. View "Wesley v. Wilkerson" on Justia Law

McHughes Law Firm filed a lawsuit on behalf of Precision Analytics, Inc., McHughes’ client, against Lillie McMullen asserting that McMullen was responsible for a consumer debt incurred on a credit card issued to her ex-husband. After that lawsuit was dismissed, McMullen filed a complaint against McHughes, alleging that McHughes violated the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and that McHughes invaded her privacy and engaged in malicious prosecution while attempting to collect on the consumer debt owned by Precision. The circuit court dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that McMullen’s complaint failed to meet the pleading requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) and that McMullen failed to allege facts to establish various elements of her state-law claims. View "McMullen v. McHughes Law Firm" on Justia Law

This lawsuit, which returned to the Supreme Court for a third time, stemmed from the contracts and payments for services in delivering produce. The parties included Hotfoot Logistics, LLC (Hotfoot), a freight property broker with its principal place of business in Little Rock, Arkansas; Western Brokerage, a property broker that that is based in Phoenix, Arizona; Shipping Point Marketing, Inc. (SPM), a shipping company based in Phoenix, Arizona; and Davis Fishgold, the president of SPM, and Louis Fishgold, the president of Western Brokerage. Hotfoot brought an action in an Arkansas state court against SPM, Western Brokerage, and the Fishgolds. After the Supreme Court’s remand in Hotfoot II, the circuit court granted summary judgment for SPM and the Fishgolds based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in granting SPM’s motion for summary judgment on personal jurisdiction, as the contacts between Hotfoot and the parties were sufficient to warrant personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and the defendants manifestly availed themselves of the privilege of conduct business in Arkansas. View "Hotfoot Logistics, LLC v. Shipping Point Mktg., Inc." on Justia Law

In 2012, the State filed a complaint seeking forfeiture of $7550 in United States currency. The complaint named both the $7550 and Patricia West as defendants in the caption. West filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the State failed to obtain service on her within 120 days of the filing of the complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 4. The circuit court granted West’s motion to dismiss, concluding that because the State knew that West had an interest in the currency, West must be subject personally to the jurisdiction of the court. On appeal, the State asserted that West was not actually a defendant but only an interest holder in the currency, and the inclusion of West as a named defendant in the complaint did not change the substance of the action as an in rem proceeding against the currency. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, because the State did not personally serve West, who was listed as a defendant in the caption of the complaint, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the action against West. View "State v. West" on Justia Law

Mary Berryhill sued Frances Synatzke, alleging that Synatzke was responsible for a car accident between Berryhill and Synatzke. Berryhill also sued seventy John Does, including a John Doe that was designated to represent the estate of any defendant who predeceased the service of the complaint. At the time the complaint was filed, however, Synatzke had died. After the statute of limitations had passed, Berryhill filed an amended complaint naming Synatzke’s estate as a party. The estate filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the original complaint was a nullity because Synatzke had died prior to the filing of the original complaint, and therefore, the complaint could not be transformed into a valid suit by amending the complaint after the statute of limitations had passed. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the estate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the identity of the tortfeasor, the estate, was unknown to Berryhill at the time she filed her original complaint, Ark. Code Ann. 16-56-125 was applicable to her claim and tolled the statute of limitations; and (2) because there was a valid pleading to relate back to, the real party, the estate, could be substituted for the John Doe defendant in the original complaint. View "Berryhill v. Synatzske" on Justia Law