Arkansas Supreme Court to Announce Details of the Use of Cameras in Appellate Court Proceedings

~ Tasha C. Taylor

On May 27, 2010, the Arkansas Supreme Court handed down a per curiam decision announcing its decision to permit broadcasting in appellate proceedings.  See In Re Amendment to Administrative Order No. 6.  In that per curiam, the Court generally described its plans to permit cameras in the courtroom: “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.” Id.  According to that opinion the Court will begin implementing the recording and broadcasting system in the 2010 Fall Term of the Court, which has just gotten underway.  Tomorrrow, the Court plans to announce more details about its decision to stream oral arguments online.  We’ll update the blog with more details after tomorrow’s announcement.

 

Arkansas’s Administrative Office of the Courts Seeks Proposals for New Statewide Electronic Filing System

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 1 Comment

The Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), pursuant to its authority under Administrative Order 21, took a step toward implementing electronic filing statewide when it recently announced its request for proposals “for systems and services for the implementation of a comprehensive statewide electronic filing system for the Arkansas Judiciary.”  According to the AOC, the filing system must meet the following requirements:

The system must have the proven capability of handling all types of cases including small claims, traffic, criminal, civil, probate, juvenile, and domestic relations. The system must also have been successfully implemented at limited, general, and appellate levels of a multi-jurisdictional court system.

Arkansas appellate attorneys and Arkansas general practitoners would benefit from the type of uniform statewide filing system, as described by the AOC.

Arkansas Appellate Courts Update–Court of Appeals Motions Conference; Fall Term 2010

~ Tasha C. Taylor

The Arkansas Court of Appeals met this week for its end of summer motions conference.  The results are included in the Court’s August 25, 2010 Syllabus. 

The summer recess for Arkansas’s appellate courts will soon be over, as both courts begin their fall terms within the next couple of weeks.  The courts will hear their first oral arguments of the fall term on September 15, 2010 (Court of Appeals), and September 16, 2010 (Supreme Court).

Coming Soon: Judiciary Website Overhaul

~ Tasha C. Taylor

Stephanie Harris, Arkansas Supreme Court Communications Counsel, is seeking suggestions from attorneys for the Arkansas Judiciary’s new website.  If you have ideas for how the website could be more user-friendly or helpful please submit your comments and suggestions to Ms. Harris.  Her e-mail is Stephanie.M.Harris@arkansas.gov, and her telephone number is (501) 371-2004.  All comments and suggestions will remain confidential.

The End of an Era: Final Bound Volume of Arkansas Reports Issued

~ Tasha C. Taylor

In a press release dated June 28, 2010, the Administrative Office of the Courts announces that the final bound volume of the Arkansas Reports and Arkansas Appellate Reports has been issued.

The final issue of the Arkansas Reports comes one hundred and seventy-three years after its first publication.  Arkansas is the first state in the country to eliminate the use of bound volumes of the appellate courts’ opinions. See Act 221 of 2009.  The final bound volume of the Arkansas Reports includes decisions from November 5, 2008 to February 12, 2009.  All opinions of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals handed down on or after February 14, 2009 are officially published as electronic versions, which can be found on the judiciary’s web site.

 

Chief Justice Hannah Confirmed by U.S. Senate To Serve on State Justice Institute Board of Directors

~ Tasha C. Taylor

Arkansas Supreme Court Chief Justice Hannah’s nomination to serve on the State Justice Institute (SJI) Board of Directors was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on June 22, 2010.  The SJI is has the authority to assist all state courts with innovations, resources, and solutions to improve access to justice and the effective, efficient administration of the courts.  Hannah is the only person from Arkansas to have ever been appointed to the SJI.  His peers at the Conference of Chief Justices submitted Hannah’s name to President Obama for consideration.  The President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, has authority under federal law to appoint the eleven members of the Board.

Governor Beebe Appoints Raymond Abramson to Arkansas Court of Appeals

~ Tasha C. Taylor ~ 2 Comments

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

~ 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.