Betty Dickey

This case involved Rose Harwell-Williams appealing a circuit court order from a permanency planning hearing and dependency-neglect adjudication regarding her children, C.H. and S.H., after they were removed from her care due to lack of supervision and other issues. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decisions, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction to conduct further hearings, including on termination of parental rights, despite the filing of a notice of appeal, because Arkansas law allows the juvenile division to retain jurisdiction in cases involving out-of-home placements. The court also addressed the finality of orders, noting that the order was final as to one child but not the other, and rejected arguments about the timeliness of the dependency-neglect petition.

family lawprocedure

The case concerned whether judgment liens obtained against Tiffany Johnson attached to a marital home that was subject to Robert Johnson's homestead exemption claim following the couple's second divorce and the property's subsequent sale. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings that the homestead exemption barred attachment of the liens, concluding instead that Robert had abandoned his homestead rights by permanently vacating the home, retaining only a key for maintenance purposes, and participating in a voluntary property settlement agreement that required the sale. The court reasoned that the divorce-related sale was not a forced sale preserving the exemption and that Robert's post-divorce conduct demonstrated clear intent to relinquish homestead protection, allowing the liens to attach to the property.

propertyfamily lawprocedure

The case concerned the validity of a 1982 postnuptial agreement between Paula Jane Stewart and her late husband James R. Stewart, under which each spouse waived rights to the other's property acquired before or during the marriage, including elective share and inheritance rights upon death. The trial court upheld the agreement and denied Mrs. Stewart any interest in her husband's estate; on appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that postnuptial agreements are enforceable in Arkansas under general contract principles even without specific statutory authorization, that mutual releases of property claims supplied adequate consideration, and that the husband's attorney had no legal duty to advise Mrs. Stewart to obtain independent counsel or to include such advice in the document. The court rejected arguments that the agreement was void at common law or that the requirements of the state's prenuptial agreement statute applied.

family lawproperty

In Perry v. Baptist Health, Dr. Bobby Perry sued Baptist Health for breach of a professional services contract seeking approximately $1,000,000 in damages, and Baptist Health filed a counterclaim for $4,000 alleging breach by Perry. A jury rejected both claims, awarding no damages to either side, after which the trial court granted Baptist Health $65,000 in attorney’s fees as the prevailing party under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-308. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that a defendant who successfully defends the primary claim qualifies as the prevailing party even if its own counterclaim fails, because prevailing-party status is determined by the overall outcome of the case rather than success on discrete issues. The court further held that once a party is deemed prevailing, the trial court has discretion to award reasonable fees for the entire litigation, including expenses tied to unsuccessful arguments.

procedurebusiness & regulatoryhealthcare

The case involved Kevin Tate's conviction by a jury for the first-degree murder of his girlfriend Melissa Portwood, for which he received a 40-year sentence. Tate appealed on four grounds, claiming error in the admission of testimony that he fired the murder weapon near a witness two days before the killing, the introduction of evidence placing his character in issue, the denial of a mistrial based on the prosecutor's closing arguments, and the admission of photographs of the victim's life during the penalty phase. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the prior incident was properly admitted under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) because its proximity to the crime made it independently relevant to issues such as intent or absence of mistake or accident. The court further held that the other evidentiary rulings and the denial of mistrial did not constitute an abuse of discretion or reversible error.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Dorsey Ainsworth's appeal from the Union County Circuit Court's denial of his motions to dismiss criminal proceedings and a petition to revoke probation, as well as the entry of a nunc pro tunc judgment and disposition order four years after his guilty plea to conspiracy to deliver a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. The court held that Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-90-105 does not require entry of judgment within thirty days and is not mandatory, allowing for nunc pro tunc entry to correct the record of the original sentence. It reasoned that prior case law interpreting similar rules supports that the timing provision is directory rather than mandatory, and the modification of the fine in the order accounted for prior payments without improperly altering the record. The court also found that other issues, such as speedy trial and evidentiary rulings, were either not preserved or without merit due to lack of prejudice or proffer.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves Albert Kieth Smith appealing his convictions from the Benton County Circuit Court for one count of kidnapping (forty years) and one count of capital murder (life without parole). Smith raised five main claims of error: lack of jurisdiction or failure to submit the issue to the jury, insufficiency of the evidence for a directed verdict, improper shifting of the burden of proof to the defense, faulty jury instructions regarding evidence not admitted for its truth, and erroneous admission of prior bad acts under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b). The background facts detail Smith's separation from his wife, his use of monitoring software and an alias email account to track her online contacts including the victim David Howard, and evidence linking Smith to the victim's shooting and related activities. The court rejected all claims after examining the record, holding that the evidence supported motive, intent, and planning; the jury instructions were adequate; and any procedural issues caused no prejudice, leading to affirmance of the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute over title to property at 17 Sherrill Road in Little Rock, where Rose Marie Gibbins claimed that deeds transferring the property to Sandi and Kenny Ganus were forged, rendering subsequent mortgages—including one assigned to Flagstar Bank—invalid. The trial court found the deeds to be forgeries based on evidence including Gibbins's denial of the signatures, testimony from the notary public, deemed admissions by the Ganuses, and their invocation of the Fifth Amendment, and ruled Flagstar's mortgage void. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial judge's factual finding of forgery was not clearly erroneous under the preponderance standard and that other arguments such as laches and statute of limitations were not preserved because the trial court made no specific rulings on them. The court noted that denial of summary judgment is not appealable and that parties must obtain rulings on all issues raised.

propertyprocedure

The case involved former West Helena mayor Johnny Weaver's appeal of a temporary restraining order that reinstated Vincent Bell as police chief and barred Weaver from interfering in police operations, along with the trial judge's refusal to recuse, Weaver's removal from a hearing, and Rule 11 sanctions imposed on Weaver and his attorney for filing a recusal motion. Most issues were deemed moot because West Helena had merged with another city, eliminating the relevant positions and rendering any ruling without practical effect. The court reversed the sanctions, finding that procedural requirements under Rule 11 were not followed, including lack of notice and a separate motion, that the hearing occurred before addressing the motion's merits, and that the judge relied on misrepresentations of Weaver's statements and improper bases for the sanctions.

procedure

This case involved Dr. Robert L. Kale's appeal from a circuit court order upholding the Arkansas State Medical Board's finding that he violated Regulation 19, which governs the operation of pain management programs, after the Board suspended his license and imposed monitoring and cost requirements. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed the Board's decision on the violation, applying the standard of review under the Administrative Procedure Act that limits reversal to cases lacking substantial evidence or involving arbitrary action, and giving deference to the agency's reasonable interpretation of its own rules even if the regulation's language could support a narrower reading. However, the court reversed the award of copying costs for medical records, holding that Arkansas Code Annotated § 25-15-212(d) permits recovery only of costs for the actual record filed on appeal, and the parties' agreement to exclude the records meant those expenses could not be assessed against Dr. Kale. The opinion emphasized that administrative agencies receive deference due to their expertise, but statutory interpretation of cost provisions is reviewed de novo.

healthcarebusiness & regulatoryprocedure

This case involved a legal malpractice lawsuit filed by Delanno, Inc. against its former attorneys, John Peace and Dover & Dixon, P.A., alleging negligence in failing to properly secure a tax clearance letter during an asset purchase in 2000, resulting in unexpected tax liability from the seller. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the grounds that the three-year statute of limitations had expired. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate fraudulent concealment sufficient to toll the limitations period and did not exercise reasonable diligence after being notified of the tax issue in 2001, as the attorneys' misfiling of the clearance letter with the wrong identification number did not constitute the required furtive fraud.

proceduretaxestorts & liability

This case involved First United, Inc., appealing a summary judgment ruling that its title insurance policy did not cover potential liability it might face as a successor-in-interest to a time-share developer under the Arkansas Time-Share Act, stemming from a prior fraud judgment of about $1.6 million related to terminated hotel amenity access. The circuit court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title Insurance Company and Hot Springs Title Company, dismissing the breach of policy claim. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statutory liability did not constitute a covered defect in title or render the title unmarketable, as opposed to merely affecting the land's economic value, and that Hot Springs Title acted as an agent for Chicago Title within its authority.

propertybusiness & regulatory

In Terry v. State, Reginald Jerome Terry was convicted in Lonoke County Circuit Court of raping his infant daughter in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-14-104 and sentenced to life in prison as a habitual offender. Terry appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient and circumstantial. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that substantial evidence supported the verdict when viewed in the light most favorable to the State. This evidence included the mother's testimony about leaving the unharmed infant with Terry, the infant's subsequent injuries and blood in her diaper, medical findings of trauma consistent with sexual abuse, and DNA analysis matching Terry's semen on the diaper with a probability exceeding one in one trillion. The court determined that the jury could reach its conclusion without speculation or conjecture and that the evidence excluded other reasonable hypotheses of innocence.

criminal law

The case involved a workers' compensation claim after Tony Moncus, a logger employed by Billingsley Logging, died in a car accident on August 19, 2003, while traveling in a convoy to an unfamiliar jobsite as specifically directed by his employer. An administrative law judge and the Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission denied benefits, finding that Moncus was not performing employment services at the time under the going-and-coming rule, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that the death was compensable because Moncus was following the employer's mandatory instructions to meet at a designated location and follow in convoy, which advanced the employer's interests in a manner distinct from ordinary travel to work. The court reasoned that this unusual arrangement made the travel an integral part of the employment, as the employer dictated the route and timing to ensure the crew arrived intact.

labor & employment

The case involved Rodney Eugene Weston appealing his convictions by a jury in Chicot County Circuit Court for capital murder, a terroristic act, and first-degree battery, based on a 2004 shooting at the Blue Front Tavern that killed Vincent Thomas and injured James Collins. Weston challenged the denial of his Batson motion regarding the state's peremptory strikes during jury selection, the sufficiency of evidence for premeditation and deliberation on the capital murder charge, and his competency to stand trial in light of mental evaluations. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentences, holding that substantial evidence supported the verdict because premeditation could be inferred from the circumstances of the crime even if formed in an instant, that the Batson issue did not establish reversible error, and that the competency claim was not preserved for appeal while mental retardation questions were properly left to the jury during sentencing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned the admissibility of evidence of a prior sexual assault on a six-year-old victim in a prosecution charging the defendant with rape under Arkansas law prohibiting sexual activity with a person under age fourteen. The trial court granted the defendant's pretrial motion to admit limited facts about the victim's earlier assault by another individual two years prior. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, ruling that the rape-shield statute generally bars evidence of a victim's prior sexual conduct, that consent is irrelevant to the charged offense, and that any determination of relevance or probative value must await trial developments rather than be decided in advance.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Jenny Crisler appealing a summary judgment granted to Unum Life Insurance Company of America in a dispute over life insurance benefits following the death of Mary Brown from an anaphylactic reaction to an antibiotic injection. The trial court had determined that Missouri law governed the policy because Missouri had the most significant relationship to the contract and that the death was not an accidental bodily injury under Missouri law. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Arkansas law applied to the certificate of insurance delivered to Brown in Arkansas, as Arkansas had the most significant relationship under choice-of-law principles including the place of contracting and delivery. Under Arkansas law, the court held that an allergic reaction to medication is not a disease or bodily infirmity that would exclude coverage, so the death qualified as an accidental bodily injury.

business & regulatory

This case involved a breach-of-contract claim by Harry Snowden against Farmers Insurance Company, Inc., alleging that the insurer failed to compensate policyholders for the diminished market value of their vehicles after paying for accident repairs, even though the policies covered property damage. Snowden sought to represent a class of Arkansas policyholders who had received repair payments of $500 or more but no diminished-value compensation. The circuit court certified the class, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court had jurisdiction following a federal remand order that was properly mailed, that the certification order reflected the court's independent judgment, and that common issues of contract interpretation predominated over individualized questions of injury and damages, satisfying the requirements for class certification under Arkansas law. The court rejected Farmers' arguments that individualized inquiries would be necessary for every class member and emphasized that the class was precisely defined and that certification was superior for resolving the claims efficiently.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Gary Combs's attempt to appeal the Springdale City Council's denial of his request to split a tract of land he owned. Combs filed a notice of appeal in circuit court under Ark. Code Ann. § 14-56-425 but did not file a certified record of the proceedings or an affidavit explaining its absence within thirty days as required by incorporated Arkansas District Court Rule 9. The circuit court dismissed the appeal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the filing requirements of Rule 9 are mandatory and jurisdictional and that the thirty-day period began running from the city council's April 26 oral vote rather than the later approval of minutes. The court reasoned that prior precedent interpreting the statute to incorporate Rule 9's procedures controlled and that failure to comply prevented the circuit court from acquiring jurisdiction.

propertyprocedure

This case involved a foreclosure action by First National Bank of Lewisville against the Mayberrys' two parcels of land, where the parties agreed to sell the non-residence parcel first. After the acreage parcel sold at auction for what the bank claimed was actually $26,534.90, the post-sale documents erroneously listed the bid and sale price as the full judgment amount of $86,534.90 due to a scrivener's error. The bank moved under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) to vacate the erroneous documents, but the circuit court never ruled on the motion, instead granting the Mayberrys a preliminary injunction against selling the residence parcel. The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the bank's appeal without prejudice, holding that the lack of a final, appealable order on the motion deprived it of jurisdiction, and the motion did not qualify as deemed denied under Appellate Rule 4(b)(1) because it was not filed within ten days of the relevant orders.

propertyprocedure