Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Appellant, by and through her attorney, filed a motion for rule on clerk to file the record and to have her appeal docketed. The clerk refused to docket the appeal on the grounds that it was untimely filed and because the circuit court’s order granting an extension of time to lodge the record on appeal did not contain the required language of Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 5(b)(1). The Supreme Court held (1) the record was timely tendered, but (2) the clerk was still correct in refusing to accept the record due to lack of compliance with Rule 5(b)(1). Remanded to the circuit court for compliance with Rule 5(b)(1). View "Baxter v. Wing" on Justia Law

Appellant filed a notice of appeal in the underlying matter. The circuit court granted Appellant’s motion for enlargement of time to file the transcript but denied Appellant’s second request for an extension of time to lodge the record. In denying Appellant’s subsequent motion for reconsideration, the circuit court concluded that the first order granting Appellant’s motion for enlargement of time failed to comply with Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 5(b)(1) and was therefore void. The Supreme Court granted Appellant’s subsequent motion for rule on clerk. However, Appellee asserted that it was not aware of the motion for rule on clerk until counsel was electronically notified of the briefing schedule. Upon further review, the Supreme Court determined that the motion for rule on clerk was improvidently granted and dismissed the appeal. View "Granger v. Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Respondents filed suit against Petitioner, an Arkansas corporation with its principal place of business in Faulkner County, alleging strict liability and negligence and seeking damages resulting from the noise, pollution, and vibrations of compressor stations owned and operated by Petitioner. The compressor stations were located in Van Buren County and White County. Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. The circuit court denied the motion to dismiss. Thereafter, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of prohibition requesting that the Supreme Court issue the writ to prevent the circuit court from proceeding for lack of proper venue. The Supreme Court denied the requested writ of prohibition, holding that Petitioner was not entitled to a writ of prohibition where Petitioner failed to demonstrate that Faulker County was wholly without jurisdiction on the issue of venue. View "Desoto Gathering Co. v. Ramsey" on Justia Law

Appellant pled guilty to one count of sexual assault in the first degree and was sentenced to thirty years’ imprisonment. Appellant later filed a petition for postconviction relief pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 37.1, alleging that defense counsel was ineffective on seven separate grounds. The circuit court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Appellant failed to assert that but for any alleged ineffectiveness on the part of counsel he would not have pleaded guilty and would have gone to trial; and (2) the circuit court did not clearly err in denying Appellant’s petition without holding an evidentiary hearing. View "Wood v. State" on Justia Law

Appellees brought this suit against the City of Little Rock for just compensation for the taking of Appellees’ property in connection with a modification of the I430/I630 Interchange. After a jury trial, the circuit court entered judgment in favor of Appellees. The City filed a notice of appeal and later filed a motion for extension of time to lodge the record. The circuit court denied the motion for extension. The City subsequently filed a second motion for extension. A special judge granted an extension to lodge the record. Appellees filed an amended and substituted motion to dismiss, contending that the circuit court erred in granting the extension of time because the City did not strictly comply with the requirements of Ark. R. App. P-Civ. 5. The Supreme Court granted the motion and dismissed the appeal, holding that the City failed strictly to comply with Rule 5, and therefore, the circuit court erred in granting the motion for extension of time to file the record. View "City of Little Rock v. Hermitage Dev. Corp." on Justia Law

Appellants filed a class action complaint alleging that the circuit court clerk falsely and fraudulently notarized oil-and-gas leases outside the presence of the landowners. The complaint requested an injunction and other relief. After a hearing, the circuit court sua sponte dismissed the case for lack of damages. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court improperly dismissed Appellants’ complaint, as the sua sponte dismissal foreclosed the possibility that Appellants might have been able to submit additional evidence indicating that there remained a genuine issue of material fact, i.e., that they had suffered damages. View "Lipsey v. Giles" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Defendants, alleging breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, tortious interference with a contract and business expectancy, and civil conspiracy. The circuit court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss all four causes of action, concluding that Plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts upon which relief could be granted. After Plaintiff filed an amended complaint asserting the same four causes of action, the circuit court again dismissed the complaint with prejudice under Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the part of the court’s second order dismissing with prejudice the breach-of-contract claim; but (2) reversed and remanded the parts of the order dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s remaining claims, as the claims went beyond mere conclusions and sufficiently stated facts upon which relief could be granted. View "The Ballard Group, Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2012, the State filed a complaint seeking forfeiture of $7550 in United States currency. The complaint named both the $7550 and Patricia West as defendants in the caption. West filed a motion to dismiss the complaint because the State failed to obtain service on her within 120 days of the filing of the complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 4. The circuit court granted West’s motion to dismiss, concluding that because the State knew that West had an interest in the currency, West must be subject personally to the jurisdiction of the court. On appeal, the State asserted that West was not actually a defendant but only an interest holder in the currency, and the inclusion of West as a named defendant in the complaint did not change the substance of the action as an in rem proceeding against the currency. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, because the State did not personally serve West, who was listed as a defendant in the caption of the complaint, the circuit court did not err in dismissing the action against West. View "State v. West" on Justia Law

Mary Berryhill sued Frances Synatzke, alleging that Synatzke was responsible for a car accident between Berryhill and Synatzke. Berryhill also sued seventy John Does, including a John Doe that was designated to represent the estate of any defendant who predeceased the service of the complaint. At the time the complaint was filed, however, Synatzke had died. After the statute of limitations had passed, Berryhill filed an amended complaint naming Synatzke’s estate as a party. The estate filed a motion for summary judgment asserting that the original complaint was a nullity because Synatzke had died prior to the filing of the original complaint, and therefore, the complaint could not be transformed into a valid suit by amending the complaint after the statute of limitations had passed. The circuit court granted summary judgment for the estate. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) because the identity of the tortfeasor, the estate, was unknown to Berryhill at the time she filed her original complaint, Ark. Code Ann. 16-56-125 was applicable to her claim and tolled the statute of limitations; and (2) because there was a valid pleading to relate back to, the real party, the estate, could be substituted for the John Doe defendant in the original complaint. View "Berryhill v. Synatzske" on Justia Law