Recent Developments - Arkansas Law Review

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2010 3:08:33 PM 456 ARKANSAS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63:449 had actually stated, “The [plaintiffs] are without standing to bring suit, and the trial court was without jurisdiction to hear the case.” (citing Giles, 362 Ark. at 348-49, 208 S.W.3d at 204). The court in this case, however, dismissed that statement as being only dicta because it was not reflected in the disposition of the case. As to the Hames case, the court distinguished it as being dismissed for being filed in the wrong court, not for lack of standing. (citing Hames, 332 Ark. at 441, 966 S.W.2d at 246). Finally, the insurance companies argued that Arkansas should follow federal precedent, which does make standing an element of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Arkansas Supreme Court acknowledged that, in the federal courts, jurisdiction is limited to actual “cases” or “controversies,” and standing is one doctrine that in part defines the limits of a “case or controversy.” (citing Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 429-30 (1998); Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498-99 (1975); Ben Oehrleins & Sons & Daughter, Inc. v. Hennepin County, 115 F.3d 1372, 1373 (8th Cir. 1997); Neighborhood Transp. Net., Inc. v. Pena, 42 F.3d 1169, 1172 (8th Cir. 1994). Some states likewise require standing as an element of jurisdiction. (citing Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 444- 45 (Tex. 1993)). Arkansas, however, has not followed and is not compelled to follow the precedents set by these other jurisdictions. (citing David Newbern & John Watkins, 2 Arkansas Civil Practice and Procedure 155 (4th ed. 2006)). Ultimately, the court rejected the insurance companies’ argument that amendment 80 had changed Arkansas law based on its case law and the text of amendment 80 itself. As to its case law, the Arkansas Supreme Court had previously held, “Amendment 80 did not alter the jurisdiction of law and equity. It only consolidated jurisdiction in the circuit courts.” (quoting First Nat’l Bank of DeWitt v. Cruthis, 360 Ark. 528, 534, 203 S.W.3d 88, 92 (2005)). Further the text of amendment 80 provides, “Jurisdiction conferred on Circuit Courts established by this Amendment includes all matters previously cognizable by Circuit, Chancery, Probate, and Juvenile Courts.” (citing Ark. Const. amend. 80, § 19(b)(1)). Therefore, the court refused to hold that standing was a matter of subject-matter jurisdiction, and, as a result, a writ of prohibition was not an appropriate remedy in the case.
(16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2010 3:08:33 PM 2010] RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 457 As to the alternative remedy of a writ of certiorari, the court rejected that request on similar grounds. Because standing is not a matter of jurisdiction in Arkansas, the court held that none of the applicable grounds for granting a writ of certiorari applied in this case. (citing Conner v. Simes, 355 Ark. 432, 438, 139 S.W.3d 476, 479-80 (2003)). As a result, the court also rejected the insurance companies’ alternative request. Foremost also had two arguments on appeal that were unique to it. 2 First, Foremost argued that the lack of jurisdiction in this case was apparent on the face of the record, meaning that the trial court had no need to defer its decision on Foremost’s motions to dismiss to avoid delving into the merits of the case before certifying the class. The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected this argument noting first that it had only permitted, and not required, the granting of some motions to dismiss prior to class certification. (citing Speights v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 358 Ark. 59, 65-A, 186 S.W.3d 715, 715 (2004) (supplemental opinion on denial of rehearing)). Further, the court had already rejected Foremost’s jurisdictional arguments and so did not agree that any jurisdictional defects were apparent on the face of the record. For its second additional argument, Foremost argued that the trial court’s refusal to determine its “power to act” prior to certification deprived Foremost of due process in violation of the Arkansas and United States Constitutions. Foremost, however, cited only “authority for general due-process law,” without any cases directly on point. As a result, the Arkansas Supreme Court held that it had no need to address this issue. 2. The remainder of this discussion is based entirely on Foremost Insurance Co. v. Miller County Circuit Court, 2010 Ark. 116, __ S.W.3d __.
Page 1 and 2: (16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2
Page 7: (16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2
Page 17: (16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2

Recent Developments - Arkansas Law Review

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?