Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this appeal from the reinstatement of Plaintiff's bench-trial judgment that the Supreme Court had earlier set aside the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court ruling that Defendant's right to a jury trial had been obviated by new legislation, holding that Defendant was entitled to a jury trial.Plaintiff asserted his right to a jury trial, but because there was a jury trial waiver clause in the loan agreement that was the subject of the litigation the circuit court struck Plaintiff's jury trial demand. The court proceeded to enter judgment against Plaintiff after a bench trial. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that "pre-dispute contractual jury waivers are unenforceable under the Arkansas Constitution" and reversed and remanded the case for a jury trial. Instead, the circuit court applied Act 13 of 2018, which the General Assembly passed after the mandate issued, and ruled that Plaintiff was not entitled to a jury trial on his claims. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in ruling that Act 13 applied in this case. View "Tilley v. Malvern National Bank" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's amended motion for belated appeal of a judgment reflecting his conviction on charges of fleeing and endangering the welfare of a minor, holding that the trial court's conclusions regarding whether Petitioner was advised of his right to appeal or whether he notified his attorney of his desire to appeal were supported by the transcript.Because Petitioner made representations that conflicted with those made by his attorney, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the trial court for additional findings of fact. The trial court found that Petitioner was advised about his right to appeal and did not timely articulate a desire to appeal. The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's motions for belated appeal, holding that Petitioner's attorney acted in a professionally reasonable manner by not filing a notice of appeal, and therefore, Petitioner was not entitled to a belated appeal. View "Simpson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from an order of the circuit court granting Appellees' motion to dismiss Appellants' complaint for lack of standing and for failure to state a cause of action, holding that the circuit court properly ruled that Appellant First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. did not have standing and that the declaratory judgment claim was moot.Appellants sought a declaratory judgment finding that Appellees, the district judge of Saline County, Benton and the district judge of Saline County, Bryant, had violated Ark. Const. art. II, 8 by failing to allow defendants to use a licensed bail-bond company. The circuit court found (1) the declaratory judgment claim was moot because Appellant James Toland had paid his sheriff's bond, most of that payment was refunded, and Toland had pleaded guilty and remained in the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction; and (2) First Arkansas lacked standing because it had not been denied the opportunity to pay Toland's bond. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal from the circuit court's order, holding (1) First Arkansas did not sustain an actual injury, and therefore, it lacked standing; and (2) the declaratory judgment claim was moot, and no exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied. View "Toland v. Robinson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted Petitioner's pro se motion for belated appeal of 2018 judgments and granted Petitioner in forma pauperis status, holding that where counsel was aware that Petitioner wished to appeal, Petitioner was entitled to a direct appeal as a matter of right.At separate trials, Petitioner was convicted of several drug charges and fleeing. In this motion, Petitioner argued that his retained trial counsel failed to pursue an appeal on his behalf. The Supreme Court granted relief, holding that where counsel admittedly was aware that Petitioner wished to appeal and where counsel did not receive direction from Petitioner not to appeal counsel did not comply with Ark. R. Crim. P. 16. The Court also granted Petitioner in forma pauperis status for the purpose of having the transcript prepared for the appeal. View "Cribbs v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal challenging the circuit court's order denying Appellants' motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment for Appellees, holding that the circuit court's order was not a final order.Appellees filed a class-action complaint against Appellants, online travel companies (OTCs), alleging that the OTCs had failed to collect or collected and failed to remit the full amount of gross-receipts taxes imposed by government entities on hotel accommodations. The circuit court granted partial summary judgment for Appellees on the issue of liability. Appellants appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where the circuit court stated that its order was preliminary and that it was retaining jurisdiction to determine the appropriate relief, and where the court did not enter an Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b) certification, the order was not final. View "Hotels.com, L.P. v. Pine Bluff Advertising" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the circuit court granting Walt & Lee Keenihan Foundation, Inc.'s (Foundation) motion for summary judgment and dismissing Heritage Properties Limited Partnership's (Heritage) complaint seeking to set aside an alleged fraudulent conveyance to the Foundation pursuant to a transfer on death (TOD) beneficiary designation on an account owned by Leta Keenihan, holding that the circuit court erred in deciding this case by summary judgment.Specifically, the Court held (1) the circuit court clearly had jurisdiction in the present case; (2) Heritage, as a creditor, had standing to pursue its claim under the Fraudulent Transfer Act against the Foundation as the transferee; and (3) Heritage was not required to present evidence of Keenihan's intent at the time of the TOD designation, but the evidence raised a factual issue precluding summary judgment as to whether Keenihan reasonably should have believed that she would incur debts beyond her ability to pay. View "Heritage Properties Limited Partnership v. Walt & Lee Keenihan Foundation, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court denied Petitioner's pro se motion requesting copies of his case file pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.-Crim. 19(b), holding that Petitioner did not demonstrate a compelling need for paper copies.At issue was Petitioner's request that the Supreme Court order Gregg Parrish, executive director of the Arkansas Public Defender Commission, to provide paper copies of the material contained on an electronic disk provided to Parrish by the circuit court. Parrish responded that he did not possess paper copies of a client file and was not obligated to convert the electronically stored material to paper. The Supreme Court denied the motion, holding that Petitioner made no showing of a compelling need for paper copies of the electronically stored material. View "Epps v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Shelter Mutual Insurance Company on Plaintiffs' claim arising from medical expenses they incurred following an automobile accident, holding that the trial court did not err in granting summary judgment.On appeal, Plaintiffs argued that the language in the relevant insurance policy was ambiguous or, in the alternative, the policy language was against public policy and should be declared void. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the applicable policy language was not ambiguous, and the policy was not against the public policy of the State of Arkansas; and (2) Plaintiffs' argument that the trial court erred in denying their motion in limine was moot. View "Crockett v. Shelter Mutual Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court dismissed this appeal from the circuit court's denial of Appellant's pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus, holding that Appellant's habeas petition was clearly without merit.Appellant filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus in the circuit court, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court lacked jurisdiction to enter a judgment reflecting Appellant's conviction on a charge of second-degree murder as a habitual offender. The circuit court denied the dismissed the petition. Appellant appealed and filed pro se motions in which he sought a copy of documents from the record on appeal in order to prepare his brief and some accommodation for the delay in filing his brief. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, which rendered the motions moot, holding that Appellant's habeas petition was clearly without merit. View "Rainer v. Kelley" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Plaintiff's action against the University of Arkansas, the Trustees of the University of Arkansas, and several individuals, both in their individual and official capacities, holding that the circuit court properly dismissed Plaintiff's claims.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the circuit court (1) did not err by requiring Plaintiff to pay for counsel of the representatives of a class of students implicated in his 2015 Arkansas Freedom of Information Act data request; (2) did not err by dismissing Plaintiff's claims for monetary relief against the official-capacity defendants based on sovereign immunity; (3) did not err by dismissing individual-capacity claims against two individuals; (4) did not err in finding that Plaintiff's individual capacity claims under the Arkansas Civil Rights Act failed to state claims for which relief could be granted; and (5) properly dismissed Plaintiff's tortious interference with a contract claim and civil conspiracy claim. Finally, the Court held that the University did not waive its sovereign immunity on a claim under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act. View "Steinbuch v. University of Arkansas" on Justia Law