Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Entergy Operations, Inc. (collectively, Entergy), the owner and operator of a nuclear plant, contracted with Precision Surveillance Company (PSC) to provide civil engineers for a project. Wade Walters, a PSC employee, died as the result of an accident at the plant. Plaintiff filed a personal-injury action in the circuit court, naming several defendants, including Walters, Entergy, and DP Engineering, Ltd. Co. Entergy filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting immunity under the exclusive-remedy provisions of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act, or, in the alternative, a motion to stay pending a review by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission. DP also filed a motion to dismiss. The circuit court denied the motions to dismiss. Entergy and DP filed petitions for writ of prohibition, contending that the circuit court was wholly without jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Act to the facts of this case. The Supreme Court granted the petitions,, holding that the circuit court acted without jurisdiction in deciding whether an employer-employee relationship existed between Walter, Entergy, and DP, as these determinations lay exclusively with the Commission. View "Entergy Ark., Inc. v. Pope County Circuit Court" on Justia Law

Appellee, the current Pine Bluff mayor, filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that she held the office of mayor through 2016 and a writ of mandamus to prohibit Appellants - the Jefferson County Election Commission and Commissioners - from taking any actions with regard to municipal elections in either the May 2014 primary election or the November 2014 general election. The circuit court found in Appellee’s favor and prohibited Appellants from holding any elections for the Pine Bluff municipal offices of mayor, treasurer, and city clerk and directing them to not count votes or certify winners in such races. After Appellants appealed, the May 2014 primary election was held, and no candidate was certified as the winner of any of those three municipal offices. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding (1) any review of this appeal as it related to the May 2014 primary election was necessarily moot; and (2) because a decision by this Court could not have any practical legal effect with regard to the impending November 2014 election, review of the circuit court’s order prohibiting Appellants from holding elections in November 2014 was also moot. View "Jefferson Cnty. Election Comm'n v. Hollingsworth" on Justia Law

Appellee, a construction company, filed a complaint for declaratory judgment against Appellants, the Arkansas State Claims Commission, the General Assembly’s Claims Review Subcommittee, the General Assembly’s Joint Budget Committee, the Arkansas State Highway Commission, and the Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department. The circuit court granted in part and denied in part Appellants’ motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded on direct appeal and granted Appellants’ motion to dismiss the cross-appeal, holding (1) Appellee’s equal-protection claim was barred by sovereign immunity; and (2) the Court lacked jurisdiction over Appellee’s cross-appeal. View "Ark. State Claims Comm'n v. Duit Constr. Co." on Justia Law

Appellant filed a pro se petition for judicial review pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 25-12-212 of the Administrative Procedure Act, asserting that the chairman of the Arkansas Parole Board had improperly denied him release on parole. The circuit court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court dismissed Appellant’s appeal and mooted his motions related to the appeal, holding that the circuit court did not err in dismissing the petition for judicial review where the petition was untimely filed, failed to state a valid claim of a due process violation, and was barred by sovereign immunity. View "Crossno v. Felts" on Justia Law

In 1993, Appellants developed Risperdal, a second-generation, or atypical, antipsychotic medication, which was considered highly beneficial in treating schizophrenia patients. In 2007, the State filed suit against Appellants, alleging that Appellants (1) knowingly made false statements or representations of material fact in their Risperdal label in violation of the Arkansas Medicaid Fraud False Claims Act (“MFFCA”); and (2) violated the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“DTPA”) by distributing a promotional letter to Arkansas healthcare providers that contained “false, deceptive, or unconscionable statements.” A jury found that Janssen violated the MFFCA and the DTPA by failing to comply with federal labeling requirements and imposed civil penalties totaling $11,422,500. The Supreme Court (1) reversed and dismissed the MFFCA claim, as Appellants were not healthcare facilities or applying for certification as described by the statute; and (2) reversed and remanded the DTPA claim, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in admitting certain hearsay into evidence. View "Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharms., Inc. v. State" on Justia Law

The Legislative Auditor subpoenaed Appellant to appear and testify during a meeting of the Legislative Joint Auditing Committee’s Standing Committee on Counties and Municipalities, but Appellant failed to appear. The Auditor subsequently filed a petition for adjudication of contempt. The circuit court eventually entered an order finding Appellant guilty of criminal contempt and issued a $250 fine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err (1) in denying Appellant’s motion to dismiss for lack of service pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 4; (2) in ruling that the subpoena was a valid subpoena; and (3) in finding Appellant in criminal contempt. View "Valley v. Pulaski County Circuit Court" on Justia Law

In 1989, Appellee pled guilty to one count of first-degree sexual abuse. In 2013, Appellee filed a motion asking the circuit court to terminate his obligation to register as a sex offender. The circuit court granted the motion and denied the State’s subsequent motion for reconsideration. The State appealed, contending that the circuit court clearly erred in concluding that Appellee was not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others and therefore could be relieved of his obligation to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s decision terminating Appellee’s obligation to register as a sex offender, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in concluding that Appellee had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that he was not likely to pose a threat to the safety of others. View "State v. Khabeer" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured while working for Employer. Following the accident, a drug test on Appellant came back positive. Appellant sought workers’ compensation benefits. An administrative law judge found that Appellant was entitled to benefits, concluding that he met his burden of proving that his accidental work incident was not substantially occasioned by the use of drugs. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission reversed, determining that Appellant did not rebut the presumption that his accident was substantially occasioned by his use of illegal drugs. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded to the Commission for a determination of benefits, holding that substantial evidence did not support the Commission’s finding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption by a preponderance of the evidence. View "Prock v. Bull Shoals Boat Landing" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured at work and taken to the hospital, where he tested positive for marijuana. The Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission denied Appellant’s claim for benefits based on its finding that, after the accident, Appellant tested positive for illegal drugs and thatAppellant failed to rebut the statutory presumption that the accident was substantially occasioned by his drug use. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Commission’s decision, holding that substantial evidence did not support the finding that Appellant failed to rebut the presumption that his accident was not substantially occasioned by his use of illegal drugs. View "Edmisten v. Bull Shoals Landing" on Justia Law

On July 12, 2010, Appellant was hired as a patient-care tech by Employer. On January 11, 2012, Employer terminated Appellant’s employment for Appellant's failure to become certified within eighteen months of being hired. The Department of Workforce Services denied Appellant’s subsequent application for unemployment benefits, finding that Appellant was discharged for failure to become certified. The Board of Review upheld the Department’s denial of benefits, concluding that Appellant’s actions were a willful disregard of her employer’s interests, and therefore, Appellant was discharged for misconduct in connection with her work. After noting that Appellant was on track to receive her testing date in advance of the eighteen-month deadline but for Employer’s failure properly to complete her application for testing, the Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Board could not have reasonably reached its conclusion that Appellant’s actions were misconduct where the required element of intent was so lacking. Remanded. View "Garrett v. Dir., Dep't of Workforce Servs." on Justia Law