Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Judge, Court of Appeals of Arkansas
Snow v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs.
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-29
The case involved Jonathan Snow’s appeal from a Baxter County Circuit Court order terminating his parental rights to his infant son, A.S., who had been removed from the home shortly after birth after sustaining serious non-accidental injuries including brain bleeding, swelling, and a fractured clavicle. The Arkansas Department of Human Services had alleged dependency-neglect based on abuse and failure to protect, and later petitioned for termination citing grounds of prior abuse or neglect endangering the child, subsequent factors including Snow’s minimal compliance with services and lack of progress, and aggravated circumstances due to the parents’ refusal to account for the injuries amid pending criminal charges. After adjudicating Snow the legal father, the circuit court found all three grounds proven, determined termination was in A.S.’s best interest based on adoptability and potential harm, and entered the termination order. On appeal, Snow’s counsel filed a no-merit brief asserting no arguable grounds for reversal. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination after reviewing the record and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw.
family law
Absolute Care Mgmt. v. Stacy
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-29 · cited 1×
In Absolute Care Management v. Stacy, the appellants appealed a ruling by the Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission that found employee Letha Stacy was performing employment services at the time of her injury in a one-vehicle accident. The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not address the merits of the appeal. Instead, it ordered rebriefing because the appellants’ abstract, brief, and addendum failed to comply with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-2. The deficiencies included missing or incorrect record page references in the abstract, an argumentative statement of the case lacking proper citations, inadequate references in the argument section, and omission of required documents such as post-hearing briefs from the addendum. The court directed the appellants to file a compliant substituted brief within fifteen days.
labor & employmentprocedure
Swindle v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co.
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15
The case concerned whether attorney Ken Swindle could pursue a claim against State Farm to enforce an $800 attorney’s lien plus costs for work on a personal-injury matter for client Dulce Estevez. After Estevez settled directly with State Farm for $2,000 and obtained a court order declaring Swindle’s lien invalid, the trial court dismissed Swindle’s separate lawsuit against the insurer on the ground that the prior ruling barred relitigation under the doctrine of issue preclusion. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that issue preclusion did not apply because Swindle and Estevez were not in privity; their interests were adverse, as Swindle had disclaimed representation of her while still asserting a lien, and he had not been made a party to the earlier proceeding. The court therefore remanded the case for further proceedings on Swindle’s complaint.
proceduretorts & liability
Graves v. Hopper
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15
In Graves v. Hopper, appellants Luther Graves and Firstcomp Insurance appealed an Arkansas Workers’ Compensation Commission decision that awarded benefits to appellee Timothy Hopper for injuries from a 2013 ladder fall while working on Graves’s construction crew; the appeal raised issues of whether Hopper’s claim was time-barred under Arkansas Code Annotated section 11-9-702(a) and whether Graves was estopped from asserting that defense due to notice of the policy. The Arkansas Court of Appeals did not reach the merits of those arguments. Instead, it ordered supplementation of both the record and addendum within specified deadlines because essential documents—including the original circuit court complaint, the remand order to the Commission, Dixie Planting Company’s joinder motion, and Graves’s dismissal motion—were missing, preventing review of the fact-dependent notice and limitations questions. The court cited Arkansas Supreme Court Rules 3-3 and 4-2, which require inclusion of all materials necessary to confirm jurisdiction, understand the case history, and decide the appeal.
labor & employmentprocedure
Horton v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15 · cited 2×
The case involved Karesha Horton’s appeal of a Scott County Circuit Court order terminating her parental rights to her infant daughter E.H., who had been removed from her custody in October 2015 after being hospitalized for failure to thrive due to improper feeding linked to Horton’s learning disabilities and limited capacity to care for the child. Arkansas Department of Human Services had provided services including a psychological evaluation, specialized parenting classes, and counseling, with the case plan goal of reunification; however, the evaluation indicated Horton was functionally illiterate, could not live independently, and required ongoing supervision for childcare. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the termination, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported the failure-to-remedy ground under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-341(b)(3)(B)(i)(a) because, despite Horton’s compliance with the case plan, the underlying issues preventing safe, independent parenting had not been resolved. The court declined to address the subsequent-factors ground as unnecessary and found Horton had waived her challenge to the denial of a second psychological evaluation by not properly designating the related order in her notice of appeal.
family lawprocedure
Foster v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15
In Foster v. State, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed Tony Foster’s conditional guilty plea to possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and possession of drug paraphernalia, stemming from drugs found during a warrantless inventory search of his vehicle. Foster had been stopped for an expired license plate, cited for multiple violations, and arrested for driving on a suspended license; the officer then arranged for the car to be towed and conducted an inventory search per Mena Police Department policy, which led to the discovery of methamphetamine inside a partially zipped bag on the passenger seat. The court affirmed the denial of Foster’s motion to suppress, holding that the arrest and towing complied with standard department policy, that the inventory search was conducted in good faith according to that policy rather than as a pretext for investigation, and that opening the bag fell within the permissible scope of such a search. The court further noted that any alleged omissions on the inventory list did not undermine the search’s validity or indicate improper handling of property.
criminal lawprocedure