On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, I will be doing a 1 hour presentation at the Arkansas Bar Center in Little Rock on recent developments in Arkansas Civil Procedure.
During the talk, I will focus on significant Arkansas civil procedure appellate decisions from the 2012-2013 court term.
You can register and get more information at this link. Link
A few weeks ago, the Administrative Offices of the Court sent out an email regarding new Rule 1.8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals. It reminds appeals council that, even though the rule language refers to “courtesy copies,” the new rule requires sending electronic copies. It is not optional.
The email also notes that the electronic copy cannot be sent by email, at this time.
As a step toward the eventual transition to electronic appellate brief filing, the Arkansas Supreme Court last week announced a new rule that will mandate sending courtesy electronic copies of briefs along with the paper documents.
Rule 1.8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals requires the submission of pdf copies of briefs to the Clerk. It does not alter the existing requirement of filing paper copies of briefs and other appellate documents.
The rule also specifies a file-naming convention to be followed for the pdf files.
Rule 1.8 goes into effect August 1, 2013.
2013 Ark. 256 (pdf).
[Update 09-05-2013: This has been updated to note that the new rule requires sending the electronic copies.]
Case: The Entertainer, Inc. v. Duffy, 2012 Ark. 202, decided on May 10, 2012.
Under what circumstances may a defendant get a default judgment set aside when the default is allegedly the result of the defendant being abandoned by his attorney?
This case originated as a personal injury action brought by Cory Duffy, the patron of a drinking establishment operated by The Entertainer, Inc. (“TEI”) and Charles Wells. Duffy sought damages against TEI and Wells after he was shot twice while waiting outside the business for a taxi.
Duffy filed his suit on November 30, 2009. Over the next 13 months, both defendants ended up in default.
Case: Padilla v. Archer, 2011 Ark.App. 746, decided on December 7, 2011.
The defendant physician brought this appeal from an unfavorable jury verdict. The plaintiff is a former patient claiming medical negligence.
One of the defendant’s arguments was that the trial court improperly permitted the jury to view a plaintiff’s expert deposition during deliberations. The expert was a physician who treated the plaintiff after the alleged negligence.
During deliberations, the jury requested to see the expert’s deposition transcript. The trial court denied the request because the transcript was not an exhibit. The court said the jurors should rely on their memories and notes regarding the expert’s testimony, but if desired, they could view the video deposition again. The jury chose to see the deposition again.