Source: https://reporteddecisions.com/category/uncategorized/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:49:41+00:00

Document:
Congratulations to Larry Bogatz (B&B Hardware) and William Jay at Goodwin Proctor. The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the merits of their appeal from a decision of the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. See https://reporteddecisions.com/2013/05/09/bb-v-hargis-part-iii/ This was the first case I discussed on this blog. I was privileged to handle the appeal to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals and I am pleased the U.S. Supreme Court will consider these issues.
My own blog was scooped by the great folks at Arkansas Appeals!
Thank you, Tasha and Andy Taylor!
This final report chronicles the history of the “same specialty” requirement in medical malpractice cases from Justice George Rose Smith’s decision in Cathey v. Williams, 290 Ark. 189 (1986), the enactment of Act 649, to the invalidation of the “same specialty” requirement in Broussard v. St. Edward Mercy Health System, Inc., 2012 Ark. 14 (as impinging on the authority of the court to decide who may testify under what conditions pursuant to Amendment 80).
I previously blogged about Bishop v. Singletary, 2013 Ark. App. 394, a custody case where the parents shared joint custody, the mother proposed a move out-of-state, and the trial court changed custody to the father.
On appeal, a split en banc panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, saying the Hollandsworth presumption would apply even in a joint-custody situation. Recall Hollandsworth v. Knyzweski, 353 Ark. 470, 109 S.W.3d 653 (2003), announced a presumption in favor of a custodial parent’s relocation, and that relocation alone would not constitute a material change of circumstances to justify a change of custody.
But that decision (and blog post) can be relegated to the dust bin of history because the Court of Appeals decision in Bishop was taken on review by the Arkansas Supreme Court and the Supreme Court reached the opposite conclusion.
A 5-2 decision of the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals opinion and affirmed the trial court. The majority held: “We clarify today that the Hollandsworth relocation presumption applies only in those cases where a parent has been granted sole or primary custody of a child. We further clarify that the Hollandsworth relocation presumption simply does not apply when the parents share joint custody of a child.” The decision goes on to announce the analysis to be applied when a court faces a change in custody request involving a joint custody arrangement. The trial court must first find a material change in circumstances, and then determine if a change of custody is in the best interests of the child, citing Lewellyn v. Lewellyn, 351 Ark. 346, 93 S.W.3d 681 (2002).
The Arkansas Supreme Court published an interim report of the special task force appointed last year to address several recurring issues in the civil justice system. Their report includes recommended changes to several important rules, and a discussion of the rationale for the proposed changes. The Court is now soliciting comments and further reports from the task force before deciding whether to implement the proposed changes.
comment period shall expire on March 14, 2014.
the recommendation included in this report.
in an answer or amended answer.
is to be determined by the trier of fact, as provided in proposed Rules 49(c) and 52(a)(2).
responsibility” for the plaintiff’s damages. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-61-204(d).
is taken from Ark. Code Ann. § 16-61-201 and is intended to be coextensive with the statute.
based on Section 2 of Act 649 of 2003, the Civil Justice Reform Act. Section 2, codified at Ark.
Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241, 308 S.W.3d 135 (2009).
In a decision released today, the Arkansas Supreme Court applied the “fireman’s rule” to bar recovery for an individual employed by the Tennessee Department of Transportation’s HELP (roadside assistance) program when he was killed in a highway crash while attempting to assist a truck driver who had run out of fuel. The decision is Nowicki v Pigue, 2013 Ark. 499. Justice Hart wrote the majority opinion. Justice Danielson and Chief Justice Hannah dissented.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 16
 § 16