Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

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