Governor Beebe Appoints Raymond Abramson to Arkansas Court of Appeals

Governor Mike Beebe recently appointed Raymond Abramson of Holly Grove as the Associate Judge for District 1, Position 2 on the Arkansas Court of Appeals, filling the vacancy left by the resignation of Judge Price Marshall, who was recently confirmed as a federal judge.  Abramson will serve in this position through 2012.  The voters of the 12 east-Arkansas counties that make up District 1 will elect a judge to fill the remaining two years of Marshall’s term.

Arkansas Supreme Court Adopts Rule Changes

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.

Arkansas Supreme Court To Permit Cameras In Appellate Proceedings

Today’s per curiam from the Arkansas Supreme Court–In Re Amendment to Administrative Order No. 6–permits broadcasting, recording, and photography in appellate proceedings in the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals.

This big change in the way Arkansas’s appellate courts do business comes with a lengthy set of rules governing the use of cameras in the courtrooms–the following is a summary of some of the highlights from the amendments to Administrative Order Number 6 that govern the use of cameras and electronic devices in all courtrooms across the state:

  • Judges may authorize broadcasting, recording, or photographing in the courtroom and the areas adjacent to the courtroom throughout the proceedings, recesses, etc., as long as the participants will not be distracted and the dignity of the proceedings will not be impaired.With a timely objection, parties or attorneys can preclude broadcasting, recording, or photographing of the proceeding.
  • Witnesses have a right to refuse to be broadcast, recorded, or photographed.
  • Jurors, minors without parental or guardian consent, victims in cases involving sexual offenses, and undercover police agents or informants shall not be broadcast, recorded, or photographed.
  • Juvenile matters, probate matters, and domestic relations matters shall not be subject to broadcasting, recording, or photographing.
  • Judges will retain ultimate control of the application of the rules and their decisions will be final and not subject to appeal.  At any time, the court may determine in its discretion to terminate the broadcast, recording, or photography. 
  • Only two cameras will be permitted in the courtroom during a trial: one camera for still photography and one for video/television photography.  The media will have a pooling arrangement whereby representatives of the news media will share the photography and video footage.  If the court has its own broadcasting, recording, or photography system, the court’s system shall be used, unless the court determines otherwise.
  • Electronic devices cannot be used in courtrooms to broadcast, record, photograph, e-mail, blog, tweet, text, post, or transmit information by any other means except as may be allowed by the court.
  • Oral arguments at the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals may be recorded, broadcasted, or webcasted through a live or tape-delayed format as the Supreme Court shall direct.  The Supreme Court’s courtroom is being equipped with a system to record and broadcast oral arguments that the Court plans to implement in the 2010 Fall Term of the Court.  Those recordings will be retained at the Clerk’s office and may be purchased for a cost to be set by the Court to cover the cost of the copies.  Objections to the recording of oral arguments and other appellate proceedings may be made to the Court.

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 Requires Appellant’s Addendum To Be “Just Right”

Attention appellate attorneys: recognizing that you might already feel a bit like Goldilocks–somewhat lost while meandering through a forest of rules and requirements to attempt to create the perfect brief–you will probably not feel as comforted as she was to hear the characterization “just right” with respect to creating the perfect appellant’s addendum.  That was the message at the conclusion of yesterday’s decision  in West Memphis Adolescent Residential, LLC v. J.T. Compton, et al., 2010 Ark. App. 450, — S.W.3d — (2010), which includes a notice “[f]or the benefit of the appellate bar” calling appellate attorneys to create addenda that are neither too big nor too small.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals explained that Rule 4-2(a)(8) requires that the documents contained in the appellant’s addendum not be too many or too few.  Rather, an addendum must contain only those documents necessary to an understanding of the issues on appeal or the appellate court’s jurisdiction:

For the benefit of the appellate bar, we note that WMAR has included many unnecessary documents in its addendum, such as multiple copies of the various contracts and leases; motions to dismiss and orders denying the motions; motions and orders on discovery disputes; motions in limine; scheduling orders; orders extending the time to respond to summary judgment motions; and protective orders. None of these documents were necessary to the arguments made on appeal. They total more than 150 pages of an addendum that contains 742 pages. Under Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8), the contents of the addendum are to be limited to only those items necessary to an understanding of the issues on appeal or our jurisdiction. We have pointed out that an abstract and addendum can be deficient for containing too much material, as well as too little. See American Transp. Corp. v. Exchange Capital Corp., 84 Ark. App. 28, 129 S.W.3d 312 (2003); Miller v. Hometown Propane Gas, Inc., 82 Ark. App. 82, 110 S.W.3d 304 (2003).

West Memphis Adolescent Residential, LLC, 2010 Ark. App. 450, at 12, — S.W.3d —, — (emphasis added).

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8) specifically requires that the addendum “shall not merely reproduce the entire record of trial court filings” but that it should contain those documents “that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” 

Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2 was amended in 2009 to provide more guidance to appellate attorneys concerning, among other things, the contents of the appellant’s addendum. See previous blog post, Arkansas Supreme Court Proposes Rule Changes as Possible Solution to Brief Deficiencies.  The amended version of Rule 4-2 went into effect on January 1, 2010.  Yesterday’s announcement to the appellate bar by the Arkansas Court of Appeals echos previous warnings from the Arkansas Supreme Court concerning deficiencies in briefs that led to the 2009 rule changes, which brought significant amendments to Rule 4-2, governing the contents of briefs on appeal. See, e.g., In re Appellate Practice Concerning Defective Briefs, 369 Ark. App’x 553 (2007); In Re: Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Rules 4-1 and 4-2.

For those who are still wondering how to create an addendum that is “just right,” the first place to start is by reviewing Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2(a)(8), which provides much more advice to attorneys than the rule previously did.  For example, Rule 4-2(a)(8) now contains a bulleted list of the documents that the addendum absolutely must contain, which provides a great starting point for determining which documents to include in an addendum.  Of course, each case is unique so there will most likely be other documents, outside of that list, that also must be included in order to create an addendum that includes all the documents in your case “that are essential for the appellate court to confirm its jurisdiction, to understand the case, and to decide the issues on appeal.” See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(a)(8)

Arkansas Democrat Gazette: Two Appellate Court Races Settled, One Headed to November Runoff

The Arkansas Democrat Gazette reports the following election results from the May 18, 2010 elections for Arkansas’s contested appellate court seats:

 

Supreme Court Position 3
2,434 of 2,516 precincts – 97 percent
Courtney Henry, 243,995 – 58 percent
John Fogleman, 178,838 – 42 percent

Appeals Court District 2 Position 1
511 of 557 precincts – 92 percent
Jo Hart, 40,312 – 52 percent
Rhonda Wood, 37,618 – 48 percent

Supreme Court Position 6
2,434 of 2,516 precincts – 97 percent
Karen Baker, 201,778 – 48 percent
Tim Fox, 153,723 – 37 percent
Evelyn Moorehead, 62,132 – 15 percent

The runoff between Judges Fox and Baker for position 6 on the Arkansas Supreme Court will be held at the general election on November 2, 2010.

May 18, 2010 Judicial Election Results

Today’s judicial elections included elections for three contested seats on Arkansas’s appellate courts.  For up-to-the-minute election results for those positions, follow these links:

  1. Arkansas Supreme Court Position 3: John Fogleman, Courtney Henry
  2. Arkansas Supreme Court Position 6: Karen Baker, Tim Fox, Evelyn Moorehead
  3. Arkansas Court of Appeals District 02, Position 01: Josephine Linker Hart (incumbent), Rhonda Wood

Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge Price Marshall Confirmed as Federal Judge

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.

Appellate Court Updates

The Administrative Office of the Courts provides a monthly Appellate Update to assist with finding published decisions of the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  The Appellate Update is not meant to provide a summary of each case, but rather provides highlights of the issues involved in each case mentioned in the publication. 

The Appellate Update can be found on the Court’s website each month.  The March volume is currently available.

Below is a sample of the case highlights included by topic in the March volume of the Appellate Update: