Court Opinion

ID: 9634592
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:17:39.762791+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:09:06.296825
License: Public Domain

LAVENSKI R. SMITH, Justice, concurring in part; dissenting in part. I write separately to dissent in part and concur in part. I join the dissent as to the mootness of the instant appeal. I, too, find no authority in Arkansas law for a compliance trial. The statutory and constitutional scheme upon which the plaintiffs based their suit no longer exists. Plaintiffs may well have a valid complaint based upon the subsequently enacted laws but that should be a different case. However, I join the majority and the concurrence on the issue of entitlement to attorneys’ fees. As the prevailing party in an action that resulted in a substantial benefit to the class they represented, the plaintiffs should be entitled to attorneys’ fees. I join the concurrence in preferring the lodestar method for calculation of those fees.