Mason Mauldin, an employee of Central Flying Service, Inc. (CFS), was killed when the plane he was flying during the course of his employment crashed. Mauldin’s estate (the Estate) filed a wrongful-death complaint against CFS and Mauldin’s supervisor (collectively, Petitioners), alleging intentional misconduct, respondeat superior, wrongful death, and survival. The Estate then amended its complaint to raise a claim challenging the constitutionality of the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Act. Petitioners moved to dismiss the Estate’s complaint because of a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, asserting that the Estate’s exclusive remedy was provided by the Act. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioners petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of prohibition to prohibit the circuit court from continuing to exercise jurisdiction over the complaint. The Supreme Court granted the petition, holding that the circuit court was wholly without jurisdiction over the Estate’s complaint, as (1) Petitioners were entitled to immunity from tort liability for the Estate’s claims against them; and (2) in order to challenge the constitutionality of the act, the Estate must demonstrate that the Act applies to it, and the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission has exclusive, original jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Act. View "Central Flying Serv. Inc. v. Circuit Court" on Justia Law
Posted in: Government & Administrative Law, Injury Law, Intellectual Property, Labor & Employment Law
At issue in this case were three trademarks registered to Plaintiff by the secretary of state. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint for declaratory judgment, seeking a determination that its trademarks were valid and that it was entitled to the exclusive use of those marks, and claiming trademark infringement against the Arkansas Lottery Commission. The Commission filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiff's complaint, which the circuit court denied. The Commission appealed, contending that the circuit court erred in denying its motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims because those claims were barred by sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court dismissed the Commission's interlocutory appeal without prejudice because the circuit court did not rule on the sovereign-immunity issue.