Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and dismissed in part the divorce decree and orders of contempt of the circuit court in this divorce case, holding that the circuit court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err in calculating Appellant's child-support obligation at $800 per month and imputing income to Appellant; (2) did not abuse its discretion in awarding alimony to Appellee; (3) did not clearly err in failing to consider a mediation agreement; and (4) did not clearly err in holding Appellant in contempt for failure to pay child support. Lastly, the Supreme Court held Appellant failed to preserve for appeal his remaining argument. View "Symanietz v. Symanietz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court denying Appellant's petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37, holding that the court did not err by denying the petition without a hearing.Appellant was convicted of murder in the first degree and sentenced to life imprisonment. In his Rule 37 petition, Appellant alleged that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request an instruction on second-degree murder. The circuit court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not clearly err in summarily denying Appellant's Rule 37 petition. View "Riley v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's petition for a writ of mandamus with prejudice under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.Appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2010, Appellant submitted a request to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory regarding DNA testing. The circuit court ordered the crime lab to release the information. When the file arrived at the prison, it was confiscated by prison officials based on their determination that it contained contraband. In 2019, Appellant filed a petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for conversion seeking to compel Appellees to release his crime lab file and monetary damages for conversion. The circuit court dismissed the case with prejudice and issued a strike. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly dismissed Appellant's petition for writ of mandamus and complaint for conversion on the ground that Appellant had already obtained the crime lab file and that Appellant failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. View "Davis v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court expanded the exception to the parental-immunity doctrine when the minor brings a direct-action suit against an insurance carrier for uninsured-motorist coverage to cover direct-action claims when underinsured benefits are at issue.A minor brought a direct-action suit against an insurance carrier for underinsured-motorist coverage. The insurer maintained that the minor could not recover under Arkansas's parental-immunity doctrine and denied the minor's claim against her mother's policy. The minor then filed a direct-action lawsuit against the insurer. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas certified a question of law regarding the exception to the parental-immunity doctrine. The Supreme Court answered that the State of Arkansas recognizes an exception to the parental-immunity doctrine when the source of recovery is uninsured-motorist benefits under a motor-vehicle liability policy. View "Tomey v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court denying Appellant's motion for a directed verdict, holding that the circuit court did not err in denying the motion.After a jury trial, Appellant was convicted of possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. On appeal, Appellant argued that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict because the State failed to prove that she possessed a "usable amount" of methamphetamine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court properly denied Appellant's motion for a directed verdict. View "Kolb v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se motion to recall the mandate issued by the Supreme Court on direct appeal, his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and his motion for joinder of claims, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to relief.Petitioner was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to a term of life imprisonment. The Supreme Court affirmed. In his motion to recall the mandate, Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction and also brought a Brady claim. The Supreme Court denied relief, holding (1) Petitioner did not establish extraordinary circumstances sufficient to recall the mandate; (2) Petitioner must file his writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court; and (3) Petitioner did not establish that he was entitled to joinder of claims. View "Anderson v. Payne" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission that Appellant was not entitled to a wage-loss award in addition to his impairment rating because Area Agency on Aging of Southeast Arkansas (AAA) extended to him a bona fide offer of employment, holding that substantial evidence did not support the Commission's decision.Appellant was driving an AAA van that overturned, injuring Appellant. An ALJ determined that Appellant was entitled to a sixty percent wage-loss award and that Appellees made no bona fide job offer of employment because the position and wages were not clear. The Commission reversed, concluding that any wage-loss award was precluded because AAA made a bona fide and reasonable obtainable job offer. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that AAA did not meet its burden to prove that Appellant was offered employment at wages equal to or greater than his average weekly wage at the time of the accident. View "Calhoun v. Area Agency on Aging of Southeast Arkansas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the circuit court granting Petitioners' request for a preliminary injunction and finding that the entirety of Ark. Code Ann. 7-9-601(b) is unconstitutional, holding that the circuit court did not abuse abuse its discretion in granting the preliminary injunction.Petitioners filed a complaint arguing that section 7-9-601(b)'s requirements requiring sponsors of initiatives to obtain federal background checks from the Arkansas State Police are unconstitutional and should be enjoined. The circuit court granted Petitioners' request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the entirety of section 7-9-601(b) is unconstitutional and enjoining Respondents from applying its provisions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Petitioners demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and that irreparable harm would result in the absence of an injunction. View "Thurston v. Safe Surgery Arkansas" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed a divorce decree that awarded Rhonda Marlene Cherry permanent alimony and a subsequent order that found William Cherry in contempt for failing to pay the full amount of alimony ordered, holding that the circuit court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not abuse its discretion by not reducing or eliminating the amount of alimony that Rhonda was to receive; (2) did not clearly err in holding William in contempt; (3) did not clearly err in finding that annuities from a personal injury settlement were not divisible as marital property; and (4) did not err in failing to order William to purchase a life insurance policy. View "Cherry v. Cherry" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court dismissing Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus seeking scientific testing of evidence from his 1996 criminal case, holding that the circuit court did not err.In 1996, Appellant was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. In 2012, Defendant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to Act 1780, asserting that he was actually innocent of the murder and seeking DNA testing on a red shirt. The circuit court denied the petition. In 2020, Appellant filed a motion to file a second or successive petition for good cause seeking scientific testing pursuant o 16-112-201 through 16-112-208. The circuit court denied the petition as successive. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant failed to establish that additional testing would significantly advance his claim of innocence. View "Hussey v. State" on Justia Law