Category: Arkansas Appellate Court News

Amendment to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b) Gives Appellate Court Option to Avoid Rebriefing When Appellant’s Abstract or Addendum is Deficient

~ Tasha C. Taylor

The Arkansas Supreme Court recently amended Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2, which governs contents of briefs on appeal, to give appellate courts an additional option concerning how those courts may handle deficiencies in the appellant’s abstract or addendum. See In Re 4-2(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, 2011 Ark. 141.  With the recent amendment to Rule 4-2(b), when the Arkansas Supreme Court or the Arkansas Court of Appeals determines that deficiencies in an appellant’s abstract or addendum need to be corrected, but rebriefing is not necessary, the court may order the appellant to file a supplemental abstract or addendum.  If an appellate court allows a supplemental abstract or addendum to be filed, that must be done within 7 calendar days.  This amendment to Rule 4-2(b) became effective March 31, 2011. See In Re 4-2(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, 2011 Ark. 141

It appears that this amendment to Rule 4-2(b) will have the effect of allowing the appellate courts, in their discretion, to more quickly and efficiently obtain information that was missing from the appellant’s abstract or addendum rather than always requiring rebriefing in those situations.  Where an appellant’s abstract or addendum is deficient or where important documents were omitted, that appellant (or his or her attorney) will save the additional cost of reprinting the entire brief in cases where the appellate court determines that rebriefing is not necessary. 

The Arkansas Supreme Court’s amendment to Rule 4-2(b) reads as follows:

(b) Insufficiency of appellant’s abstract or addendum. Motions to dismiss the appeal for insufficiency of appellant’s abstract or addendum will not be recognized. Deficiencies in the appellant’s abstract or addendum will ordinarily come to the court’s attention and be handled in one of four ways as follows:

. . .

(4) If the appellate court determines that deficiencies or omissions in the abstract or addendum need to be corrected, but complete rebriefing is not needed, then the court will order the appellant to file a supplemental abstract or addendum within seven calendar days to provide the additional materials from the record to the members of the appellate court.Ark

Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b)(4).

Arkansas Supreme Court Rules Act 1 Unconstitutional

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 1 Comment

The Arkansas Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision handed down this morning, affirmed the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s decision ruling that Act 1 is unconstitutional as a violation of fundamental privacy rights under the Arkansas Constitution.

The following is a link to the Court’s Decision: DHS v Cole Opinion. 

Act 1–also known as the Arkansas Adoption and Foster Care Act of 2008–was approved by Arkansas voters by a vote of 57% on November 4, 2008.  Act 1, which went into effect on January 1, 2009, prohibits an individual from adopting or serving as a foster parent if that individual is “cohabiting with a sexual partner outside of a marriage that is valid under the Arkansas Constitution and the laws of this state.” Ark. Code Ann. Section 9-8-304(b).  The prohibition on adoption and foster parenting “applies equally to cohabiting opposite-sex and same-sex individuals.” Ark. Code Ann. Section 9-8-304(b).

In today’s opinion, the Arkansas Supreme Court announced its holding concerning the constitutionality of Act 1 as follows:

We hold that a fundamental right to privacy is at issue in this case and that, under the Arkansas Consitution, sexual cohabitors have the right to engage in private, consensual, noncommercial intimacy in the privacy of their homes.  We further hold that this right is jeopardized by Act 1 which precludes all sexual cohabitors, without exception, from eligibility for parenthood, whether by means of adoption or foster care. 

Proposed Changes to Arkansas Appellate Court Rules Affecting Civil Practice

~ Tasha C. Taylor

The Arkansas Supreme Court delivered a per curiam opinion on March 3, 2011, in which the Court announced proposed changes to rules of procedure affecting civil practice.  See In Re Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure and Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals, 2011 Ark. 99.

The following rule changes to the Arkansas Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals were proposed by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Civil Practice and are being suggested by the Arkansas Supreme Court: 

  • Rule 2-1. Motions, general rules—The change would require that motions filed in the appellate courts comply with the style of appellate court briefs.  Currently the rules governing the style of briefs are more specific than the rules governing the styles of motions.  Based on this rule change, motions would be required to be in 14-point font, among other things.
  • Rule 4-1. Style of briefs—This change would increase the page numbers in the Appellant’s reply brief from 15 to 20 pages.  When the Court previously changed Rule 4-1 to require 14-point font to be used in briefs filed in appellate courts, the number of pages for the appellant’s brief and the appellee’s brief was increased by 5 pages.  This rule change would also add an additional 5 pages to the reply brief.  
  • Rule 4-2. Contents of briefs—The statement of the case would increase from a maximum of 5 to a maximum of 6 pages.  This change is also in response to the previous increase in the font size of appellate court briefs from 12 to 14 point font.
  • Rule 6-7. Taxation of costs—This change would increase the total costs for the filing fee that is recoverable by the prevailing party to $165.  This change would reflect the actual cost of filing an appeal in the appellate courts (to include the addition of the $15 technology fee that was previously added to each filing fee).
  • Rule 6-9. Rules for appeals in dependency-neglect cases—This amendment would add a motion to intervene in dependency-neglect proceedings to the list of appealable orders under the expedited appeal procedure of Rule 6-9.

If you wish to comment on these proposed rule changes, make your comments in writing before May 1, 2011, to: Leslie W. Steen, Clerk, Supreme Court of Arkansas, Attn.: Civil Procedure Rules, Justice Building, 625 Marshall Street, Little Rock, Arkansas 72201.

Arkansas Times: Judge Ray Abramson To Run For Arkansas Supreme Court

~ Andy Taylor ~ 1 Comment

The Arkansas Times is reporting that Judge Ray Abramson, who is currently serving in an appointed position on the Arkansas Court of Appeals, will run for the Arkansas Supreme Court in 2012.  He would be running for Arkansas Supreme Court Associate Justice Jim Gunter‘s seat.  Justice Gunter has not announced whether he will seek re-election to that seat.

Swearing-In Ceremony for Newly Elected Arkansas Supreme Court Justices to be Streamed Live Today at 3:00 p.m.

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 1 Comment

The Honorable Karen Baker and the Honorable Courtney Hudson Henry will be sworn in as Associate Justices of the Arkansas Supreme Court today at 3:00 p.m. in the Arkansas Supreme Court courtroom in Little Rock.  The ceremony will be streamed live online. 

Judge Karen Baker formerly served as the Court of Appeals Judge for District 2, Position 2.  She was elected to the Arkansas Supreme Court in a runoff election on November 2, 2010, where she received 60% of the votes to overtake her opponent, Pulaski County Circuit Court Judge Tim Fox. See Arkansas Supreme Court Election Results: Judge Karen Baker Wins Election for Position 6.

Judge Courtney Henry, also a former Arkansas Court of Appeals Judge (for District 3), was elected to the Arkansas Supreme Court on May 18, 2010.  She received 58% of the vote to defeat Circuit Court Judge John Fogleman. See May 18, 2010 Judicial Election Results.

Former Arkansas Supreme Court Justice Annabelle Imber Tuck was the first female Justice to be elected to the Arkansas Supreme Court in 1997.  Justice Imber Tuck now serves as Commissioner of Arkansas Access to Justice.  The elections of the Honorable Courtney Henry and the Honorable Karen Baker mark only the second and third times in Arkansas history that females have been elected to serve as Associate Justices to the Arkansas Supreme Court.  Other women who have served on the Court by way of appointments include: Elsijane Trimble Roy, Betty Dickey, Andree Layton Roaf, and Elana Cunningham Wills.

Click here to watch the video from the January 10, 2011 Arkansas Supreme Court Swearing-In Ceremony.

Governor Beebe Makes Two Judicial Appointments to Arkansas Court of Appeals

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 3 Comments

Governor Mike Beebe announced yesterday two judicial appointments to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.  The two vacancies on the Court of Appeals were created by the 2010 elections of Court of Appeals Judges Karen Baker and Courtney Henry to the Arkansas Supreme Court. See Arkansas Supreme Court Election Results: Judge Karen Baker Wins Election for Position 6; Arkansas Democrat Gazette: Two Appellate Court Races Settled, One Headed to November Runoff.

The Governor appointed Cliff Hoofman, of Enola, to replace Karen Baker as Associate Judge for District 2.  His appointment expires on December 31, 2012.  Hoofman had been appointed by Governor Beebe to the Arkansas Highway Commission in 2007.  Hoofman has resigned from that position and his replacement will soon be announced by the Governor’s office.

Doug Martin, of Fayetteville, was appointed by the Governor as Associate Judge for District 3 on the Arkansas Court of Appeals to replace Courtney Henry.  His appointment expires on December 31, 2012.

UPDATED: Arkansas Supreme Court: West Memphis 3 Cases Reversed and Remanded

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 3 Comments

West Memphis 3 Cases Reversed and Remanded

“Therefore, we reverse and remand for an evidentiary hearing and reconsideration of the motion in light of the proper interpretation of the statutes.”

Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417, at 16.

The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down opinions this morning in the West Memphis 3 cases.  The Court reversed all three cases and remanded for evidentiary hearings to be held in accordance with the proper interpretation of the relevant statutes. 

Here are links to the opinions:

The Echols case was argued to the Arkansas Supreme Court on September 30, 2010.  Click here to view the video of the oral argument.

News Coverage of Today’s Opinions:

UPDATED News Stories:

Video Links:

UPDATE: Arkansas Supreme Court Election Results: Judge Karen Baker Wins Election for Position 6

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 3 Comments

With 78% of the precincts reporting, the Arkansas Democrat Gazette has called the election for Position 6 on the Arkansas Supreme Court for Judge Karen Baker.  Judge Baker led by a slim margin early in the night, but took a bigger lead as the night continued.  The race in Pulaski County (Judge Fox’s home county) was close, with Judge Baker edging out Judge Fox 51% to 49%.  In Judge Baker’s home county (Van Buren County), Judge Baker defeated Judge Fox by 73% to 27%.  As of the time this post was published, Judge Fox had won or was leading in the following counties: Ashley, Perry, Polk, Prairie. and Sevier.  Several other counties had not yet reported results.

Judge Karen Baker currently serves as the Court of Appeals Judge for District 2, Position 2.  She was elected to that position in 2000 and re-elected in 2004 (Act 1812 of 2003 reapportioned the Court of Appeals districts and required a new election for this position in 2004).  Judge Baker’s eight-year term on the Court of Appeals will end in 2012.  It is expected that Governor Mike Beebe will appoint a replacement for the vacancy that will be created when Judge Baker takes office as an Associate Justice on the Arkansas Supreme Court in January, 2011.

Judge Tim Fox was elected to serve as a Pulaski County Circuit Court judge in 2002 and then re-elected to another six-year term in 2008.

UPDATE: As of 6:00 p.m. on November 3, 2010, 98% of precincts are reporting the following results in the Supreme Court Election:  Baker 388,530 (61%), Fox 252,639 (39%).

Fite Petition for Writ of Prohibition Denied Without Prejudice

~ Tasha C. Taylor

The Arkansas Supreme Court handed down a Formal Order today denying Tommy L. Fite’s Petition and amended petition for writ of prohibition without prejudice.

Fite is a Republican candidate for the Arkansas House of Representatives in District 83.  Last week, Pulaski County Circuit Judge Collins Kilgore ruled that Fite was ineligible for the ballot because he plead guilty to a misdemeanor bribery charge in 1984.  Judge Kilgore ordered election officials not to count votes for Fite.  Fite filed a Petition for Writ of Prohibition and an Amended Petition for Writ of Prohibition with the Arkansas Supreme Court.  In response, Michael Grulkey filed a Response to Fite’s Petition for a Writ of Prohibition and Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions Against Fite.  Both the Petition and Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions were denied by today’s order.

The pleadings filed in the Arkansas Supreme Court can be viewed here:

The seat for which Fite is running represents Crawford and Franklin counties and is currently held by Republican Beverly Pyle.  Democrat Leslee Milam Post is also a candidate for that position.

Elections will be held tomorrow, November 2, 2010.

Arkansas Business Analyzes Supreme Court Election Spending

~ Andy Taylor

Arkansas Justice Building--Home of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Arkansas Court of Appeals

In its October 25 issue, Arkansas Business published an article detailing the amount of money spent on Supreme Court races in Arkansas.  The articles provides a thorough analysis on the issue of money and judicial elections, both on the state level and from a national perspectives.  Some statistics of note:

Click here for a link to the article.