In an appeal from a summary judgment order, the Appellant must include all documents upon which the circuit court’s summary judgment decision was based. See Dachs v. Hendrix, 2009 Ark. 322, — S.W.3d — (2009) (per curiam) (holding that “an order of a circuit court cannot be reviewed for error when the addendum fails to include the documents on which the order was based.”).

An Appellant is required, for example, to include in his Addendum the motions and briefs supporting and opposing summary judgment. See Snowden v. JRE Investments, Inc., 2010 Ark. 80, — S.W.3d — (February 18, 2010) (per curiam).  In an appeal from a summary judgment decision, those motions will be “essential to an understanding of the case.” See Snowden, supra; see also  Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8).

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) provides the following concerning the Appellant’s Addendum:

 The appellant’s brief shall contain an addendum after the signature and certificate of service. The addendum shall contain true and legible copies of the non- transcript documents in the record on appeal that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal. The addendum shall not merely reproduce the entire record of trial court filings, nor shall it contain any document or material that is not in the record.

While the rule provides that not every document from the record of trial court filings should be included in the Appellant’s Addendum, it is necessary to include all documents in the record “that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8).

This week, Judge Rhonda Wood, who has served as a circuit court judge for the 20th judicial district for the past four years, announced her candidacy for District 2, Position 1 on the Arkansas Court of AppealsJudge Josephine Linker Hart currently holds that position.  There has been no announcement to date from Judge Hart concerning whether she intends to seek re-election.  The election for this position will be held on May 18, 2010.

Posted by: Tasha C. Taylor | February 20, 2010

Appellate Practice Tip: Free Online Opinions Search

Need help finding an Arkansas appellate court decision?  The Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Court of Appeals provide a free online “Opinions Search” of their Opinions dated January 1996 to present.  The free online search allows users to sort results by date or by relevance.

The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down a per curiam decision on January 21, 2010, outlining proposed rule changes suggested by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Civil Practice. 

The multiple proposed changes to the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, and the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil are outlined in the Court’s per curiam order

Comments concerning the suggested rule changes must be submitted in writing to the Supreme Court Clerk’s office before March 31, 2010.

Posted by: Tasha C. Taylor | February 12, 2010

Arkansas Supreme Court Update: Position 6

Last month, following Justice Bowen’s decision to step down from the Governor-appointed position of Associate JusticeGoverner Beebe appointed Ron Sheffield to complete the term of Justice Imber, who retired last year as an Associate Justice of the Arkansas Supreme Court. 

A special election will be held later this year to determine who will complete Justice Imber’s term, which expires in 2014.  Currently, the candidates for Position 6 are: (1) Judge Tim Fox; (2) Judge Karen Baker; and (3) Evelyn Moorehead.

Posted by: Tasha C. Taylor | January 8, 2010

Reminder: Appellate Court Rule Changes Effective January 1, 2010

The rule changes to the Arkansas Supreme Court Rules pronounced in the Arkansas Supreme Court’s per curiam of October 29, 2009, are now in effect.  For more information about the rule changes, visit our previous post: Appellate Court Rule Changes Effective January 1, 2010.

The Arkansas Supreme Court defined the issue in Schubert v. Arkansas Department of Human Services, 2009 Ark. 596 (Dec. 3, 2009), as whether an appeal from the denial of a motion to intervene in a dependency-neglect matter is governed by Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9 or whether it falls under Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil 2(a)(2).  Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-9 was adopted in 2006 as a Rule governing appeals only in dependency-neglect cases.  The rules for taking an appeal from a decision in a dependency-neglect cases vary from other appeals that may be appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 2 of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil.

The Court held that “the denial of a motion to intervene in a dependency-neglect matter is not governed by Rule 6-9,” but is instead governed by Rule 2(a)(2).

The determination of which rule applied significantly impacted that case where the appellants had failed to sign the notice of appeal along with their attorney.  That is because Rule 6-9(b)(1)(B) provides that “[t]he notice of appeal and designation of record shall be signed by the appellant, if an adult, and appellant’s counsel.”  Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure–Civil 2(a)(2), however, includes no such signature requirement for the appellants.

The Arkansas Supreme Court concluded that because the appeal was “governed by Rule 2(a)(2), the [appellants'] failure to sign the notice of appeal was not a fatal defect[.]“

Posted by: Tasha C. Taylor | December 3, 2009

Failure to Sign Complaint Does Not Render Service of Process Defective

The Arkansas Supreme Court has recently held that there is no signature requirement in Rule 4 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure that would require a complaint to be signed. See Jones v. Turner, 2009 Ark. 545 (Nov. 5, 2009).  As such, an unsigned complaint served with  proper summons does not render service of process defective.  For more analysis of this decision, visit the Downtown Lawyer legal blog.

Older Posts »

Categories