Case Name: HOLIDAY INN and U.S. Fire Insurance Company v. Darryl COLEMAN
Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1989-11-01
Citations: 29 Ark. App. 157
Docket Number: CA 89-377
Parties: HOLIDAY INN and U.S. Fire Insurance Company v. Darryl COLEMAN
Judges: Mayfield, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.
Reporter: Arkansas Appellate Reports
Volume: 29
Pages: 157–159

Head Matter:
HOLIDAY INN and U.S. Fire Insurance Company v. Darryl COLEMAN
CA 89-377
778 S.W.2d 649
Court of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc
Opinion delivered November 1, 1989
Walter A. Murray, for movant Arkansas Self Insurers Ass’n.
Michael W. Mitchell of Mitchell & Rochell and Friday, Eldredge & Clark, by: Diane S. Mackey, for movants Arkansas Hospital Ass’n, Arkansas Medical Society, Arkansas Chiropractic Ass’n, Arkansas Chapter of American Physical Therapy Ass’n, Arkansas Podiatric Medical Ass’n, and Arkansas State Dental Ass’n.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
The Arkansas Self Insurers Association and the Arkansas Hospital Association, et al., have filed motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs in conjunction with this workers' compensation case. In Ferguson v. Brick, 279 Ark. 168, 649 S.W.2d 397 (1983), the Arkansas Supreme Court, in a per curiam opinion, traced the history of the amicus curiae brief. The supreme court recognized that "the undertaking of the amicus has changed from that of an impartial friend of the court to that of an acknowledged adversary." The reason that such briefs have been welcomed is "the possibility that an amicus brief will have legal significance." Ferguson, 279 Ark. at 173.
The actual holding in Ferguson v. Brick is that permission to file such a brief would be denied when the purpose was nothing more than to make a political endorsement of the basic brief and it was obvious that the moving party would discuss nothing of legal significance.
Although the movants here are "acknowledged advocates" we cannot say with assurance that their briefs would be of no legal significance. We therefore grant the motions.
Mayfield, J., concurs in part and dissents in part.