Case Title: Boswell, Tucker & Brewster v. Shirron

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-04-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
BOSWELL, TUCKER & BREWSTER v. The Honorable
Phillip SHIRRON

95-964                                             ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered April 29, 1996


1.   Prohibition -- extraordinary writ -- used only where court
     proposes to act in excess of its jurisdiction. -- A writ of
     prohibition is an extraordinary writ and is never issued to
     prevent a trial court from erroneously exercising its
     jurisdiction, but only where it proposes to act in excess of
     its jurisdiction.

2.   Prohibition -- issuance of writ is discretionary. -- Issuance
     of prohibition is discretionary in cases of pressing necessity
     and should never be granted unless the petitioner is clearly
     entitled to relief. 

3.   Prohibition -- no basis for requested relief. -- Where the
     record did not show that respondent court was proposing to act
     in excess of its jurisdiction or that petitioner was clearly
     entitled to the relief it requested, the supreme court
     determined that there was no basis upon which to grant the
     requested extraordinary relief.

4.   Appeal & error -- supreme court does not consider matters
     outside record. -- Where an affidavit attached to petitioner's
     brief was not part of the record or the supplemental record
     filed in the case, the supreme court did not consider it; the
     supreme court does not consider matters outside the record.

5.   Prohibition -- record did not show that prohibition was
     clearly warranted -- petition denied. -- Where the record did
     not demonstrate that respondent court had acted or proposed to
     act in excess of its jurisdiction and did not show that there
     was a pressing necessity or that the extraordinary remedy of
     a writ of prohibition was otherwise clearly warranted, the
     petition for writ of prohibition was denied.


     Petition for Writ of Prohibition (Saline Circuit Court;
Phillip Shirron, Judge); Writ denied.
     Boswell, Tucker, Brewster & Hicks, by: Ted Boswell, for
petitioner.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by: Patricia Van Ausdall, Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.Associate Justice Donald L.
Corbin, 4-29-96   *ADVREP8*





BOSWELL, TUCKER & BREWSTER,
                   PETITIONER,

V.

THE HONORABLE PHILLIP SHIRRON,
                   RESPONDENT,



95-964



PETITION FOR WRIT OF
PROHIBITION (SALINE CIRCUIT
COURT, SEVENTH JUDICIAL
DISTRICT, NO. CIV 93-352-1,
HON. PHILLIP SHIRRON, JUDGE),



WRIT DENIED.






     Petitioner, the law firm of Boswell, Tucker & Brewster, filed
this original action for a writ of prohibition against respondent,
the Honorable Phillip Shirron of the Saline County Circuit Court. 
Respondent did not respond, and we requested briefs from both
parties.  Boswell, Tucker & Brewster v. Shirron, 322 Ark. 111, 906 S.W.2d 315 (1995) (per curiam).  Petitioner seeks a writ
prohibiting respondent from exercising "any further jurisdictional
authority over any Boswell law firm case" and from "presiding as
the judge over any Boswell law firm litigation."  Jurisdiction of
a petition for writ of prohibition is properly in this court
pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(6).
     On May 25, 1995, respondent entered the following order, which
is quoted in its entirety:  
            IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF GRANT,
          HOT SPRING, AND SALINE COUNTIES, ARKANSAS
                          UNIFORM ORDER
          Comes The Honorable Phillip Shirron, to transfer all
     cases in which the law firm of Boswell, Tucker and
     Brewster represents any party, to the other divisions of
     the Seventh Circuit Courts.
          IT IS SO ORDERED.
                              /s/ Phillip Shirron           
                              The Honorable Phillip Shirron
                              Circuit Judge

                              Date  5/25/95

On June 2, 1995, respondent entered the following order, which we
also quote in its entirety:
             IN THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF GRANT,
          HOT SPRING, AND SALINE COUNTIES, ARKANSAS
                          UNIFORM ORDER
          Now, upon reconsideration of the Uniform Order
     entered by this Court on May 25, 1995, transferring all
     cases in which the law firm of Boswell, Tucker and
     Brewster represent any party to the other divisions of
     the 7th Circuit Courts, the Court finds that said Order
     should be and is hereby set aside and held for nought.
          IT IS SO ORDERED.
                              /s/ Phillip Shirron          
                              The Honorable Phillip Shirron
                              Circuit Judge

                              Date:  6/2/95  
          

     Petitioner asserts that, after entering the order on May 25,
1995, respondent lacked any further jurisdiction to act in any of
petitioner's cases.  Respondent argues that petitioner's attack is
on the two orders themselves, not on the underlying subject-matter
jurisdiction of the circuit court to enter such orders.  Therefore,
argues respondent, prohibition is not appropriate in this case. 
Respondent argues further that prohibition is inappropriate because
there is no record relative to the circumstances surrounding the
issuance of either order.  We agree with respondent's latter
argument.
     A writ of prohibition is an extraordinary writ and is never
issued to prevent a trial court from erroneously exercising its
jurisdiction, but only where it proposes to act in excess of its
jurisdiction.  Ridenhower v. Erwin, 303 Ark. 647, 799 S.W.2d 535
(1990).  Issuance of prohibition is discretionary in cases of
pressing necessity and should never be granted unless the
petitioner is clearly entitled to relief.  Id.  The record before
us does not show that respondent is proposing to act in excess of
its jurisdiction or that petitioner is clearly entitled to the
relief it requests.  Absent such proof, there is no basis upon
which to grant the extraordinary relief requested in this case.  
     Petitioner contends that the reason for the entry of the
May 25 order was a recusal required by respondent's bias or
prejudice against petitioner as counsel.  Petitioner relies on
Matthews v. State, 313 Ark. 327, 331,