Lavenski R. Smith

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.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedurefree speech

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.

labor & employment

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.

procedurebusiness & regulatory

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.

criminal lawprocedure

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.

family lawproceduretorts & liability

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.

criminal lawgunsprocedure

The case involved two irrevocable trusts created in 1940 and 1941 by N.B. Dalton (later Barbara D. Blaisdell), who was both settlor and beneficiary, with fixed monthly payment terms and contingent beneficiaries including her adopted son Lyle Thompson. After Dalton's death, the estate's personal representative and others sued the trustee (Bank of America) seeking repayment of thirteen excess disbursements made between 1982 and 1995 (totaling over $284,000) that exceeded the trusts' limits, along with trust termination and other relief; the trustee had petitioned for instructions on administration and distribution. The trial court denied the counterclaim for repayment and held Lyle personally liable for the trustee's attorney's fees and expenses. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, reasoning that the repeated disbursements constituted a modification of the trust terms by course of conduct under state law (Act 841 of 1989), that estoppel or acquiescence barred recovery, and that the fee award was proper given the litigation history and dismissals of prior suits.

propertyprocedure

This case involves Robert Norman appealing a chancery court's denial of his motion to recover attorney fees and expenses from his ex-wife's former attorney, C. Burt Newell, following Newell's disqualification due to a conflict of interest in the divorce proceedings. The trial court rejected the motion, citing lack of service on Newell and his firm, that the request sought damages rather than fees, insufficient pleadings, and lack of standing by Robert. The Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice, holding that the order was not final because Josephine's voluntary dismissal had not been granted, the underlying action remained pending, and Robert failed to obtain a Rule 54(b) certification for an immediate appeal, consistent with the policy against piecemeal appeals.

family lawprocedure

In this medical malpractice case, the Kraemers sued Dr. Callaway for failing to diagnose their daughter's spina bifida during prenatal care, and the defense sought to retain as an expert witness Dr. Cloud, who had later provided the mother with unrelated sterilization services. The circuit court permitted the defense to use Dr. Cloud as an expert and to meet with him ex parte, subject to certain restrictions on his testimony. The Arkansas Supreme Court granted the Kraemers' petition for a writ of certiorari, holding that the trial court's order violated Rule 503(d)(3)(B) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence. The court reasoned that the rule's plain language expressly prohibits informal ex parte communications with a plaintiff's treating physician absent the patient's consent and bars courts from compelling such consent, relying on the rule's text and persuasive federal interpretations.

proceduretorts & liabilityhealthcare

The case involved Eddie Eugene Thompson's appeal from the revocation of his suspended sentences for robbery, burglary, and drug possession convictions, based on failures to pay restitution and new criminal violations including drug possession. The Arkansas Supreme Court addressed whether Thompson's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was preserved for appeal, given his failure to move for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case or all evidence as required by Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1. The court held that Rule 33.1 applies to revocation hearings because they constitute nonjury trials within criminal proceedings, so the sufficiency argument was not preserved. It affirmed the revocations, noting that the State's burden in such hearings is only a preponderance of the evidence and that the rule's requirements for preserving issues on appeal extend to these proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involves an automatic review by the Arkansas Supreme Court of Robert Robbins's 1998 conviction for the capital murder of Bethany White and his resulting death sentence, following his waiver of appeal rights. The court examined the full record under its prior precedents, checking for prejudicial errors, plain errors under the Wicks exceptions, and adherence to fundamental safeguards in the trial process. It found no such errors occurred, including in the handling of Robbins's self-representation and desire for the death penalty, and determined that the jury properly followed instructions in imposing the sentence based on aggravating circumstances. The court therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a class-action lawsuit by customers Wanda Williams and Sharon McGhee against Showmethemoney Check Cashers alleging that the company's cash advance practices, which charged fees on loans to be repaid from future paychecks, violated Arkansas usury laws. Showmethemoney moved to compel arbitration under a clause in its Check Cashing Agreement that required arbitration of all disputes but expressly reserved the company's right to sue in court to collect amounts due. The trial court denied the motion, finding the clause unenforceable, and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed on de novo review, holding that the arbitration provision lacked mutuality of obligation under Arkansas contract law because it imposed arbitration only on customers while allowing Showmethemoney unilateral access to the courts for collections.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved Gyronne Buckley’s appeal of his convictions on two counts of delivery of a controlled substance, Class Y felonies, for which a Clark County jury imposed two consecutive life sentences based on arranged drug purchases by a police informant. Buckley raised multiple claims of trial error, including the admission of hearsay during the sentencing phase and issues related to jury selection, alternative sentencing instructions, and the proportionality of the sentences. The Arkansas Supreme Court found that the trial court erred by admitting certain hearsay evidence in the sentencing phase and therefore reversed the sentences and remanded for a new sentencing hearing; the court did not reach or find reversible error on the remaining claims.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a dispute between May Construction Company and Riverdale Development Company over performance under a 1996 construction contract that included a mandatory arbitration clause. After May initiated arbitration for unpaid amounts, Riverdale filed a parallel circuit court action alleging breach, negligence, and deceit; the court denied a stay of arbitration but later granted Riverdale's motion to compel discovery when the arbitrator encountered jurisdictional limits with out-of-state witnesses. May petitioned for a writ of prohibition, arguing the circuit court lacked authority to intervene in the arbitration proceeding. The Arkansas Supreme Court denied the writ, holding that the Arkansas Arbitration Act confers continuing jurisdiction on the circuit court to enforce discovery orders already issued by the arbitrator, consistent with federal precedent under 9 U.S.C. § 7.

procedure

This probate case concerned whether an Arkansas court could award fees to an estate administrator, attorney, and accountants after an Oklahoma probate court had denied similar requests in ancillary proceedings involving the same estate. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed the fee awards that overlapped with those denied in Oklahoma and remanded the remaining fee issues. The court held that the Full Faith and Credit Clause barred relitigation of the denied fees because the Oklahoma court had in rem jurisdiction over Oklahoma property and personal jurisdiction over the parties. It further directed the lower court to reassess any additional fees under Arkansas statutory standards after excluding the previously denied amounts.

federal powerpropertyprocedurefamily law

In this case, the State appealed a trial court's pretrial order suppressing evidence of drug manufacturing seized from Jerry Dean Howard's rural property under a search warrant. The warrant described the property by owner names, county road, and features like a pond and outbuildings, but the trial court found the description invalid due to inaccuracies. The State argued that identifying the owner suffices for particularity in rural settings under Arkansas law. The Supreme Court of Arkansas dismissed the interlocutory appeal, concluding that it did not involve a question requiring review for the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law because it turned on specific facts or mixed questions rather than a pure legal issue.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a divorce and child support dispute in which the Sebastian County Chancery Court ordered the father, a physician, to pay a base monthly child support amount of $6,000 plus twenty-five percent of any future conditional bonus he might receive under his employment contract. The father appealed, arguing that the order violated Arkansas Supreme Court Administrative Order 10 by failing to establish a fixed sum certain dollar amount for support when the bonus income was uncertain and contingent on practice profitability. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the order must set a specific dollar amount based on demonstrated earnings rather than a percentage of indefinite future income. The court reasoned that while the bonus qualified as income under the order, support calculations for variable or contingent amounts require reference to past earnings, tax returns, or other reliable indicators, which were absent here.

family law

This case involved a real estate transaction in which Welch Foods conveyed land by warranty deed to buyers, but a twenty-foot strip along one side actually belonged to a utility company; Chicago Title Insurance later paid the buyers $23,500 under its title policy for the partial title failure and then sued Welch as subrogee to recover for breach of warranty. The trial court granted summary judgment to Chicago Title, awarding the paid amount plus fees and costs. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that a title insurer may enforce subrogation rights against the warrantor even if it failed to discover the defect in its own title search, that no material fact disputes existed on the breach or damages, and that the untimely proffer of additional appraisal evidence was properly excluded under procedural rules.

property

The case involved Steven Anthony Sera's appeal from convictions on eight criminal counts arising from three incidents in which he allegedly drugged two women with Rohypnol and engaged in nonconsensual sexual acts in Arkansas. Sera challenged the sufficiency of the evidence on one count, the admission of other-acts evidence under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b), the constitutionality of the state Rape Shield Statute, the admission of expert testimony, and the admission of a videotape showing similar encounters. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed all convictions, holding that the evidence was sufficient, that the challenged evidentiary rulings were proper, and that the rape-shield statute did not violate constitutional protections. A dissent argued that the State failed to prove the corpus delicti for one of the rape counts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved whether a disabled mother receiving only $494 per month in federal Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits could be ordered to pay child support to her ex-husband for their two children after the Office of Child Support Enforcement intervened in their divorce case. The trial court and court of appeals set support at $70 per month, treating SSI as income available for support under Arkansas rules. The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed, holding that federal law both expressly and impliedly preempts state child-support orders against SSI benefits because those benefits are intended solely for the recipient's basic subsistence and are protected from garnishment, levy, or similar legal processes. The court reasoned that SSI is not 'income' subject to support withholding and followed the approach of most other states in exempting it.

family lawfederal power