Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the order of the circuit court certifying the City of Gurdon's class-action lawsuit alleging that Suddenlink Communications unlawfully charged Gurdon and other cities in the state three fees for the cities' use of Suddenlink's services, holding that there was no error.Suddenlink, which provided telephone, internet, and cable services to Gurdon, assessed a 911 fee, an Arkansas High-Cost Fund Fee, and a franchise fee. Gurdon brought this action alleging that the imposition of the fees against the City was unlawful. Gurdon then filed a motion for class certification. The circuit court granted the motion. Suddenlink appealed the certification as well as the circuit court's refusal to first address Suddenlink's pending motion to compel arbitration before certifying the class. The Supreme Court dismissed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the arbitration issue was not appealable on an interlocutory basis; and (2) the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by certifying the class. View "Altic USA, Inc. v. City of Gurdon ex rel. Honorable Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case after Appellant appealed a circuit court order granting in part and denying in part its motion to enforce arbitration agreements and to compel class members with arbitration agreements to submit their claims to binding arbitration, holding that remand was required.In this case involving several claims against a nursing home, Plaintiff moved to enforce arbitration agreements and to compel other class members with arbitration agreements to submit their claims to binding arbitration, a motion that involved arbitration agreements signed by thirty-three residents at admission. The circuit court granted the motion with respect to fifteen residents and denied it with respect to eighteen residents. The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions for the circuit court to make findings regarding its order denying Plaintiffs motion to compel arbitration, holding that, in order to conduct a proper appellate review, this Court must know the circuit court's rationale for its decision. View "Robinson Nursing & Rehabilitation Center, LLC v. Phillips" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying the State's motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal of a district court judgment finding him guilty of two misdemeanors, holding that there was no error.In its motion to dismiss Defendant's appeal, the State claimed that Defendant had failed strictly to comply with the requirements of Ark. R. Crim. P. 36(c), and therefore, the circuit court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal. After a hearing, the circuit court denied the motion to dismiss, finding that Defendant timely filed the record within thirty days of the entry of judgment in the district court. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court acquired jurisdiction of Defendant's appeal upon the timely filing of the certified district court record. View "State v. Voast" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granting class certification in this class action alleging that Mid-South Adjustment Co., Inc. violated provisions of the Arkansas Fair Debt Collection Practices Act when attempting to collect debt on behalf of Jacksonville Water Works, holding that there was no error.On appeal, Mid-South argued, among other things, that the class definition was unworkable because it required individualized inquiry into when each potential member made his or her last payment and when the statute of limitations period expired. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the class definition properly identified class members by objective criteria; (2) the circuit court did not err in finding that a class action is a superior method for adjudication; and (3) Brittany Smith was an adequate class representative. View "Mid-South Adjustment Co., Inc. v. Smith" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Defendant's petition for postconviction relief alleging five grounds for relief from the judgment of conviction of first-degree murder and sentence of life imprisonment, holding that there was no error.The circuit court denied Defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, the only claims alleged in his postconviction motion, all of which it denied without an evidentiary hearing except one. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the performance of Defendant's trial counsel was not deficient and that Defendant was not entitled to relief on any of his allegations of error. View "Arnold v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1 petition for relief following an evidentiary hearing, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the petition.After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of capital murder, aggravated robbery, and a firearm enhancement. In his petition for postconviction relief, Petitioner claimed that he received ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects. The circuit court denied the petition after posthearing briefs were held. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief. View "Pree v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the jury verdict in circuit court finding Defendant guilty of failure to comply with sex-offender reporting requirements, holding that the circuit court did not err, prejudicially or otherwise, in the proceedings below.On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his timely motions for a directed verdict and in finding that he was a person required to register as a sex offender. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that the circuit court (1) did not err in denying Defendant's motion for a directed verdict challenging the sufficiency of the evidence; and (2) did not err in finding that Defendant was required to register as a sex offender. View "Lenard v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying and dismissing Appellant's motion for new trial and petition for habeas corpus, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below.Appellant was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, which the circuit court dismissed. Appellant then filed a motion for a new trial under Ark. R. Civ. P. 59, which the circuit court denied and dismissed. The Supreme Court affirmed the order denying Appellant's habeas petition and his motion for new trial, holding that Appellant was not entitled to relief on any of his claims of error. View "Scott v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed as modified the orders of the circuit court granting motions to dismiss filed by the Lonoke County Board of Election Commissioners, individual Board members, and the Secretary of State, holding that the dismissal orders are modified to reflect that the dismissals are without prejudice.Plaintiff, who sought to run as an independent candidate in the 2022 election for Lonoke County Judge, brought this action seeking a declaration that the actions of the Clerk's office violated his right to access to the ballot and the right of the voters to cast ballots for independent candidates and adding challenges to the constitutionality of Ark. Code Ann. 7-7-103. The circuit court dismissed the complaint with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed as modified to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed the complaint but that the dismissal should have been without prejudice. View "Blackburn v. Lonoke County Bd. of Election Commissioners" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to Rule 37.1 relief.After a jury trial, Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and two counts of first-degree battery. The convictions were affirmed on appeal. In his petition for postconviction relief Petitioner argued, among other things, that he was subject to an unlawful arrest, that his due process rights were violated, and that he was denied effective assistance of appellate counsel. The trial court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Petitioner failed to demonstrate entitlement to Rule 37.1 relief. View "Braud v. State" on Justia Law