Author: Andy Taylor

Andy Taylor is an Arkansas Personal Injury Lawyer and Partner at Taylor and Taylor Law Firm, P.A. In addition to helping injured victims across Arkansas, Andy's practice also focuses on appellate advocacy and business litigation.

Arkansas Supreme Court Adopts Rule Changes

~ Andy Taylor

In a recent per curiam, the Arkansas Supreme Court adopted all but three of the proposed appellate rule changes that were proposed and made available for public comment earlier this year.

The rule change that was adopted by the Court that probably has the greatest impact on practicing appellate attorneys is the addition of Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 3(e)(vi).   That rule requires that in a notice of appeal, the appealing party must state that it abandons any pending but unresolved claims.   There are, of course, some circumstances in which this statement isn’t required, such as in the case of an interlocutory appeal, for example.  The purpose of the rule is to prevent a finality problem that often arises at the appellate level.  This often occurs when there is some unresolved claim that was, for all practical purposes, abandoned by a party but never formally abandoned by an order entered at the trial court level.

In addition to that change, the following is a summary of the other changes made to the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals:

  • An 18-day limit to file a motion to reconsider any order or decision on any motion (2-1(g)).
  • An increase in the number of briefs that must be filed in certain circumstances (2-4(e), 4-1(d), 4-4(a)-(c)).
  • A change in the way oral arguments are scheduled (5-1(a), (b)).
  • A limit of  15  pages for certain petitions  (6-1(e)).
  • A change to the way extensions are handled in dependency-neglect cases (6-9(d), (e))

The Court also made a change to Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure 2, adding a subsection (13) that allows civil or criminal contempt orders to be appealed from the circuit court directly to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

The Court declined to adopt three proposed changes that relate to appellate practice.  First, the Court declined to adopt the proposed addition of section(d) to Ark. R. App. P.–Civ. 5, which would have made the untimely filing of a record a disciplinary issue for the attorney, but would have removed the jurisdictional element (meaning that the appellate courts would still hear the appeal, even if the record was not timely filed).  The second change that the Court declined to adopt was the proposed addition of subdivision (e) to Rule of  the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals 4-1, which would have mandated color-coding of briefs.  (As a side note, we had begun color-coding briefs [the current rules do not prohibit this], but are reconsidering that decision.  It is our understanding that there are logistical reasons that the Court prefers not to have color-coded briefs at the current time.)  Third, rather than completely rewriting Rule of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals 2-1 (relating to motion practice), the Court simply adopted proposed subdivision (g), which, as mentioned above, sets an 18-day time limit for filing a motion to reconsider a ruling on any motion covered by that rule.

West No Longer Publishing All Reported Decisions in South Western Reporter

~ Andy Taylor

The following article, which originally appeared in the Arkansas Real Estate Review of the Arkansas Bar Association Real Estate Section, will be of interest to those who practice appellate law in Arkansas.  In the article, Professor Lynn Foster, Arkansas Bar Foundation Professor of Law at the UALR William H. Bowen School of Law, writes that West is no longer publishing all reported decisions of the Arkansas Court of Appeals or Arkansas Supreme Court in the South Western Reporter (recall that all Arkansas Court of Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court decisions are now reported pursuant to Rule 5-2).  In addition, a rather confusing header that appears at the top of these cases in Westlaw gives the impression that the cases have no precedential value, when, in fact, they do.  The fact that decisions of the Arkansas Court of Appeals and Arkansas Supreme Court are not being published in the South Western Reporter is yet another reason that we believe using electronic research databases is the better method of researching these days (we use Westlaw at Cullen & Co.).  The full text of the article is available after the jump (click the “More” link).

Incidentally, I highly recommend that you join the Real Estate Section of the Arkansas Bar Association, if for no other reason than to receive the Arkansas Real Estate Review.

Continue reading “West No Longer Publishing All Reported Decisions in South Western Reporter” →

Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge Price Marshall Confirmed as Federal Judge

~ Andy Taylor ~ 2 Comments

Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge D.P. “Price” Marshall has been confirmed as a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.   Judge Marshall was elected to the Arkansas Court of Appeals four years ago, and will be replacing U.S. District Judge William R. Wilson, who assumed senior status (which is a form of retirement).   A spokesman for Gov. Beebe’s office said that the Governor is still considering how to handle the vacancy that Judge Marshall’s appointment leaves on the Court of Appeals.

Insight Into Binding the Appellant’s Addendum

~ Andy Taylor ~ 1 Comment

A few weeks ago, I argued a case before the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  The biggest insight I gained was actually with respect to a judge’s comment concerning our Addendum in that case.  Before asking his first question, Judge Price Marshall complimented me for binding the Addendum separately from the remainder of the brief.  We typically bind Addenda separately from briefs when the Addenda are fairly large.  Judge Marshall said that he appreciated it because it made it easier to refer to the Addendum while reading the brief.

A few caveats.  First, this was a very big Addendum (approximately 400 pages), and our argument in this case relied heavily on the documents included in the Addendum.  In cases where the Addendum is extremely small, I still intend to bind the Addendum with the brief.  Second, while the Addendum may be bound separately, the abstract must be bound in the same volume as the brief unless the abstract exceeds 250 pages. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(5)(C)(ii).  Third, I recognize that this was the opinion of one of twelve judges on the Court of Appeals, and I am not intending to suggest that he necessarily was speaking for the entire Court.

The Court’s rules concerning the Addendum to an Appellant’s brief can be found at Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8).