The case involved attorney Mark Cambiano, who faced interim suspension of his law license by the Arkansas Supreme Court Committee on Professional Conduct following his federal conviction for filing a false currency transaction report, and who counterclaimed in disbarment proceedings to challenge the constitutionality of Section 7J of the Procedures Regulating Professional Conduct. The Conway County Circuit Court dismissed the counterclaim, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed on de novo review, holding that Section 7J is constitutional. The court reasoned that Cambiano's pre-enforcement facial challenge failed because the rule's terms were not impermissibly vague in all applications, drew support from the Model Rules on nonlawyer assistants, and other claims regarding due process, free speech, and equal protection either lacked merit or supporting authority under the applicable standards.
In Patterson v. Arkansas Department of Health, appellant Annalee Patterson sought permanent total disability benefits under the odd-lot doctrine after sustaining a compensable lumbar spine injury in 1991 that required five surgeries. The Arkansas Supreme Court reviewed the Workers’ Compensation Commission’s denial of benefits, which the court of appeals had reversed, and affirmed the Commission’s determination that Patterson did not prove she was unable to return to work in any meaningful capacity or that the employer failed to make a bona fide job offer meeting wage requirements. The court also affirmed that the Second Injury Trust Fund bore no liability, applying the tripartite test from Mid-State Construction Co. v. Second Injury Fund and finding no evidence that Patterson’s preexisting Sjogren’s Syndrome combined with her work injury to produce greater disability. The decision reversed the court of appeals in part and affirmed the Commission in part.
In Burnette v. Perkins & Associates, the Cedar Mountain Sewer Improvement District commissioners appealed a chancery court order denying their request for attorney’s fees after the trial court dismissed Perkins & Associates’ contract lawsuit without prejudice. Perkins had sued the district for unpaid engineering fees under a 1997 contract, and the defendants moved to dismiss for insufficient pleading; the court granted dismissal without prejudice for failure to properly name the defendant and comply with procedural rules. The appellants sought fees under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-22-308 as the prevailing party in a contract action, but the trial court ruled that a without-prejudice dismissal did not confer that status. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that prevailing-party status under the statute requires a merits determination, as a without-prejudice dismissal allows the plaintiff to refile and does not finally resolve the claims in the defendants’ favor.
In Green v. State, Willie Leon Green appealed the denial of his Arkansas Rule 37 petition for postconviction relief after his convictions for first-degree murder and attempted capital murder of two police officers during a narcotics search warrant execution. Green argued that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object when the trial judge explained perjury to a key defense witness and warned of its penalties, which he claimed intimidated the witness and undermined her credibility. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of relief, holding that while the judge's comment may have been improper, Green failed to show prejudice under the Strickland standard because there was no reasonable probability that the outcome would have differed absent the comment, given the totality of the evidence including inconsistencies in the witness's testimony. The court distinguished prior cases involving more coercive judicial statements and noted that counsel's omission did not amount to deficient performance warranting reversal.
The case involved Darryl Robert Francis, Sr., who sued his adult children for civil conspiracy and tortious interference with contract after they initiated guardianship proceedings alleging his mental incompetence due to concerns over his relationship and financial arrangements with a paralegal. The parties settled the guardianship action in probate court, dismissing all claims with prejudice and establishing an irrevocable trust for Francis's assets, after which Francis dismissed a related abuse-of-process suit. Francis then filed new tort claims in circuit court, which the trial court dismissed on grounds of res judicata and judicial estoppel. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the prior settlement and dismissal with prejudice in the probate proceeding barred relitigation of the same issues and claims arising from the guardianship filings. The court reasoned that the probate court's order fully resolved the controversies between the parties, precluding subsequent tort actions based on the same facts.
The case involved Michael Benson's appeal of his conviction for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under Arkansas law. Police had arrested Benson for driving on a suspended license, impounded the vehicle per department policy, and conducted an inventory search that uncovered the weapon. Benson moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search violated police guidelines requiring impoundment only as a last resort and that the Fourth Amendment required offering him an opportunity to arrange an alternative disposition of the car. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the inventory search complied with standard procedures and that Supreme Court precedent does not mandate providing alternatives to impoundment to avoid such searches.
