Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Burleson v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15 · cited 7×
In January 2016, the Arkansas Department of Human Services removed Patricia Burleson’s three children after finding the family home in squalid condition and the parents unaware that a young child had left or that an officer had entered the residence; the children were later adjudicated dependent-neglected due to unsafe conditions and the mother’s positive drug test. Burleson was ordered to complete multiple services, including drug screens, counseling, a psychological evaluation, stable housing and employment, and resolution of criminal matters, but over the following year she showed minimal compliance, tested positive for methamphetamine, failed to complete key assessments until shortly before the hearing, moved without notice, and had no visits with the children after November 2016. The circuit court terminated her parental rights on the “subsequent factors” ground and a best-interest finding; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the evidence of ongoing instability, risk of harm, and the children’s adoptability supported both the statutory ground and the conclusion that termination served the children’s need for permanency.
family law
Johnston v. Arkansas Department of Human Services
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-15 · cited 1×
The case involves Kristina Johnston’s appeal of a Lonoke County Circuit Court permanency-planning order in a dependency-neglect proceeding concerning her three children. The case began in February 2016 after Johnston’s arrest left the children without a caregiver; she stipulated that they were dependent-neglected due to inadequate housing and was ordered to complete a case plan that included stable housing and employment, drug treatment, counseling, and parenting classes. After a year of services, the circuit court found Johnston had not achieved the required stability and that returning the children to her was not in their best interest. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the record supported the findings of repeated short-term housing, lack of consistent employment, incomplete counseling, and a history of instability that created potential harm, and that it was not left with a firm conviction that the circuit court erred.
family law
Holladay v. Glass
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-08 · cited 6×
The case arose after Bessie Glass requested a copy of a Pulaski County jail transport manifest listing the inmates and detainees on a vehicle during her nephew’s escape attempt; Sheriff Doc Holladay and Sergeant Lesa Warner denied the request under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act’s “undisclosed investigation” exemption, Ark. Code Ann. § 25-19-105(b)(6), then later provided the document. Glass sued, and the circuit court ruled that the manifest was a non-investigatory log of names, dates, and times rather than internal work product detailing an investigation. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the exemption did not apply because the document was akin to routine jail logs and shift sheets that the supreme court had previously found subject to disclosure in Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff. The court also upheld the award of attorney’s fees and costs to Glass.
free speechcriminal lawcivil rights
Sebastian County Sheriff's Department v. Hardy
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-08
The case involved Victoria Hardy, an employee of the Sebastian County Sheriff's Department, who suffered two compensable right-knee injuries in 2012 and 2013, underwent total knee replacement, and later developed a stutter as a side effect of medication for nerve damage. Hardy sought additional workers' compensation benefits under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-9-505(a), claiming the Department unreasonably refused to return her to work despite available positions within her medical restrictions, while the Department argued it had acted reasonably due to her ongoing medication-related communication problems and lack of an updated doctor's release. The Arkansas Workers' Compensation Commission awarded the benefits, finding that the Department had not shown reasonable cause to deny her return and crediting testimony that suitable jobs existed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that substantial evidence supported the Commission's decision because it properly weighed credibility and resolved conflicts in favor of the supervisor's testimony that accommodations were possible once medication issues resolved.
labor & employment
Cummings v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-11-01 · cited 3×
Christopher Cummings was convicted by a jury in Faulkner County Circuit Court of multiple felonies, including two counts of attempted capital murder with firearm enhancements, drug and firearm possession offenses, and others arising from a May 2015 high-speed chase in which he fired at pursuing police officers, fled on foot, and resisted arrest. He appealed, claiming the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress an incriminating statement he gave police after waiving Miranda rights and by refusing to lower his $1 million pretrial bond. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. It upheld admission of the statement based on officers’ testimony that Cummings appeared to understand his rights, was not coerced or threatened, and had been medically cleared, despite his claims of a head injury from the arrest. The court also held the bond challenge was abandoned because the proper vehicle was a timely writ of certiorari rather than a post-conviction appeal, rendering the issue moot after trial.
criminal lawprocedureguns
Wilson v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2017-10-25
In Wilson v. State, Regina Wilson appealed a circuit court order determining the start date for postjudgment interest on an award of attorney’s fees and costs after she prevailed in a jury trial under the Arkansas Whistle-Blower Act. The December 2015 judgment on the $127,000 verdict stated that attorney’s fees and costs would bear 10% interest, but the court did not quantify the fees ($201,250) and costs until an April 2016 order. Wilson argued that interest should run from the December 2015 judgment date, citing precedents on modified judgments, while the State contended that interest accrues only once the amount is fixed. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s ruling that interest begins when the fees are quantified in dollars and cents, holding that a recent Arkansas Supreme Court decision directly controlled the issue and rendered earlier cases inapplicable.
procedurelabor & employment