Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the circuit court granting a temporary restraining order (TRO) in favor of Plaintiffs in their lawsuit challenging the validity of the emergency clause in Act 237 of 2023 (the LEARNS Act), holding that the circuit court erred in granting Plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief.After the LEARNS Act was signed into law Plaintiffs sought a TRO, asserting that they would suffer irreparable harm if Defendants continued to implement the Act despite an invalid emergency clause relating to the creation of transformation contracts. The circuit court granted the TRO until a scheduled hearing. The Supreme Court reversed and vacated the TRO, holding that Plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of providing irreparable harm. View "Ark. Dep't of Education v. Jackson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court convicting and sentencing Defendant for first-degree battery and failure to appear on a felony, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to substitute counsel and that there was substantial evidence to support Defendant's conviction for first-degree battery.After a three-day trial, the jury convicted Defendant of first-degree battery and failure to appear but acquitted him of second-degree battery. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because Defendant was indigent he was not entitled to the counsel of his choice, and therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying Defendant's motion to substitute counsel; and (2) the State introduced substantial evidence sufficient to support Defendant's conviction for first-degree battery. View "Mitchell v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court awarding attorneys' fees after a medical doctor sued and lost against a hospital following its revocation of the doctor's medical staff and surgical privileges, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.Doctor, a surgeon, sued Hospital after his termination stemming from allegations that Doctor provided care that fell short of standard surgical practice. After a remand, all of Doctor's claims were dismissed. Thereafter, the circuit court awarded Hospital attorneys' fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the motion for attorneys' fees was timely filed; and (2) Doctor was not entitled to relief on his remaining allegations of error. View "Williams v. Baptist Health" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's legal malpractice complaint against Appellees, her attorneys, and finding that there were no facts in the complaint sufficient to toll the running of the statute of limitations based on fraudulent concealment, holding that there was no error.In the motion to dismiss, Appellees argued that Appellant's malpractice claim was barred by the applicable statute of limitations and should be dismissed. The circuit court granted the motion to dismiss based on the statute of limitations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the case and finding there were no facts contained in the complaint sufficient to toll the running of the statute of limitations based on fraudulent concealment. View "Nichols v. Gibson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari or, in the alternative, a writ of prohibition, writ of mandamus or other supervisory writ, holding that the circuit court did not misinterpret the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure in the underlying discovery matter.Respondents filed a complaint against Monsanto Company alleging claims for design defect, failure to warn, negligence, breach of implied warranties, violation of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and loss of consortium. After Respondents served Monsanto with a deposition notice Monsanto moved for a protective order arguing that the deposition was not permitted. The circuit court denied Monsanto's motion for protective order. Monsanto then brought this petition. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Monsanto was seeking to control the circuit court's exercise of its discretion in this discovery matter and that mandamus will not lie for this purpose. View "Monsanto Co. v. Kilgore" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Appellant's petition for writ of habeas corpus arguing that his sentence was illegal and that an amendment to the information was to vague to suffice as an amendment, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver. The jury sentenced Appellant as a habitual offender to a total of 125 years' imprisonment, and the court of appeals affirmed. Appellant later filed this petition for a writ of habeas corpus arguing that the State's oral amendment to the information was deficient. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had authority to sentence Appellant as a habitual offender, and his sentence was within the range authorized under Ark. Code Ann. 5-4-501(b). View "Hogan v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of five counts of rape and his sentence to five concurrent terms of life imprisonment, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion for a continuance.After a trial, Defendant was convicted of raping his minor stepson and sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal, Defendant argued that the circuit court abused its discretion by denying a continuance to investigate a supplemental DNA report allegedly provided to the defense the Friday before trial. The Supreme Court rejected the argument and affirmed, holding that Defendant never requested a continuance to obtain an expert to perform DNA testing and that Defendant's argument was not preserved for appellate review. View "Grady v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction for first-degree murder and his sentence of life imprisonment, holding that Defendant was not entitled to relief on his claims of error.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) as to four of Defendant's allegations of error on appeal, five of them were not preserved; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by rejecting Defendant's proffered justification instructions; (3) the trial court did not prevent Defendant from testifying about the victim's past violent acts; (4) Defendant was not entitled to resentencing based on the standard sentencing range for a Class Y felony; and (5) the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting two challenged photographs. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate probable cause for issuance of the writ.Appellant was found guilty of three counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft of property and sentenced to three life sentences. Appellant later filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that his convictions were invalid because the circuit judge who presided over his trial did not legally hold the position. The circuit court denied and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate probable cause for issuance of the writ. View "Chatmon v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denied his motion to amend his reply brief, holding that there was no error.Appellant filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that his sentence exceeded the maximum authorized by Ark. Code Ann. 5-64-422 and that the statute of limitations had expired on the primary offense underlying his engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise conviction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant's sentence was well within the statutory limits and was not illegal; and (2) the criminal information was timely filed for statute of limitations purposes. View "Hunter v. Payne" on Justia Law