Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court that denied Appellant's request for injunctive relief preventing the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences (UAMS) from terminating his employment and dismissing Appellant's complaint, holding that the relief sought in this complaint was moot.After Appellant, a former tenured professor at UAMS, was terminated he sought an injunction. UAMS moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Appellant's claim was moot and that UAMS was immune from suit. The circuit court denied Appellant's request for injunctive relief and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's claims were moot, and therefore, dismissal was appropriate. View "Mahadevan v. Board of Trustees of University of Arkansas System" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Petitioner's petition for postconviction relief without holding an evidentiary hearing, holding that there was no error.Petitioner was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. In his petition for postconviction relief, Petitioner alleged that his counsel was ineffective for failing to develop the defense of provocation, among other things. The circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court's finding that Petitioner did not receive ineffective assistance of counsel was not clearly erroneous. View "Coakley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to consider a petition for writ of error coram nobis, holding that Petitioner failed to raise allegations that warranted coram nobis relief.Petitioner was found guilty of the rape of his minor daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his petition for coram nobis relief, Petitioner argued that his daughter had recanted her trial testimony, his daughter perjured herself, and his trial counsel was ineffective. The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner failed to establish that he was entitled to the writ. View "Chunestudy v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se petition to reinvest jurisdiction in the trial court to allow him to file a petition for writ of error coram nobis in his criminal case, holding that the claims raised by Petitioner did not establish a ground for the writ.Petitioner was found guilty by a jury of multiple drug-related offenses. After his convictions were affirmed Appellant brought this petition alleging that his attorney failed to represent him adequately and that his state of mind at trial amounted to "insanity." The Supreme Court denied the petition, holding that Petitioner's claims did not entitle him to relief. View "McKinney v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief, holding that there was no error.Appellant was convicted of murdering his wife. He later filed this petition, presenting five ineffective assistance of counsel claims. After an evidentiary hearing, the circuit court denied relief. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in failing to find that his trial counsel was ineffective because of a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant's argument was without merit, and the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's petition. View "Brennan v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the ruling of the circuit court denying the State's motion to dismiss this complaint alleging that Defendants, in their official capacities, had terminated him in violation of public policy without a name-clearing hearing, holding that sovereign immunity barred Plaintiff's claims.After Plaintiff was involuntarily terminated from his employment he filed suit for wrongful termination and alleged a violation of his right to due process for failure to provide a name-clearing hearing. Appellants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds of sovereign immunity. The motion was denied. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts that asserted an exception to the sovereign-immunity doctrine. View "Arkansas Department of Finance & Administration v. Lewis" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's fourth pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant failed to demonstrate that he was entitled to relief.In his petition, Appellant alleged that he was charged by information with three separate counts of rape under the same docket number but was wrongfully tried in three separate trials. Appellant further alleged that his rape convictions violated the prohibition against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the habeas petition, holding that Appellant's claims were without merit. View "Williams v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Plaintiff's employment discrimination complaint against Mercy Hospital Rogers, holding that the circuit court erred in dismissing Plaintiff's claim under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act of 1993 (ACRA), Ark. Code Ann. 16-123-101 to -108.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) Plaintiff failed to plead that Mercy made any false representations of material fact sufficient to sustain a fraud action; (2) because Plaintiff failed to state an exception to the at-will doctrine, the circuit court properly dismissed Plaintiff's wrongful termination claim; and (3) given the circuit court's lack of factual development on the issue, the Supreme Court cannot determine whether Mercy is a religious organization entitled to the ACRA religious-organization exemption, and therefore, remand was required. View "Jenkins v. Mercy Hospital Rogers" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the circuit court decree quieting and confirming title in 173.5 acres of Lee County property in favor of Appellees in this case, holding that the circuit court's findings were clearly erroneous.Appellants filed a partition petition in the circuit court. Appellees filed a counterclaim to quiet title, asserting that they owned the property through adverse possession. The circuit court entered a decree quieting and confirming title in favor of Appellees and declaring all other claims null and void. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the cotenants of the property were entitled to actual notice of Appellees' adverse claim to the property and that Appellees did not meet the actual notice requirement. View "Trice v. Trice" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's motion to correct clerical errors in his sentencing order, holding that Appellant's sentencing order contained a clerical error.In his motion to correct clerical errors in his sentencing order, Appellant alleged that his sentencing order contained (1) an inaccurate criminal history score, (2) the wrong presumptive sentence, and (3) the incorrect date of his plea hearing. The circuit court denied the motion on the grounds that these issues were substantive rather than clerical. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) as to the first two alleged errors, the circuit court correctly denied Appellant's motion; and (2) the circuit court abused its discretion when it refused to enter an order nunc pro tunc correcting the third alleged clerical error. View "Wood v. State" on Justia Law