Court Opinion

ID: 9677542
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:54:50.675919+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:56.671688
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. There are too many unanswered questions to allow this matter to go to trial on June 13, and a necessary party, Judge Neal, should be joined as a respondent. I would stay the trial to allow further development and consideration of the issues involved and advance the case for a decision in September. The question that permeates all aspects of this case is why a special judge, Judge John Lineberger, was appointed to replace Special Judge Lance Hanshaw on May 3, 1994, when a duly elected circuit judge, Judge Oily Neal, who had not recused, was sitting in the district. This appears to have been a mistake. When one special judge recused, the immediate reaction must have been to appoint another special judge without remembering that in the interim a new circuit judge had been elected within the district. It is that apparent mistake that has given rise to much of this controversy. Turning to the merits, I cannot agree with certain statements by the majority. First, I cannot agree that the record reflects that all circuit judges in the First Judicial District had recused in this case when Special Judge Lineberger was appointed. Judge Neal apparently had not. Further, I question the following conclusion: “The mere fact that a new circuit judge had been elected in the 1st Judicial Circuit after Judge Hanshaw’s and before Judge Lineberger’s assignments did not, in itself, suggest the new circuit judge had not recused from trying this case.” The majority appears to espouse the theory of an implied recusal by Judge Neal at the time of Special Judge Lineberger’s appointment because Judge Neal failed to announce that he was trying the case. That assumption by the majority inspires the question of whether Judge Neal was ever presented with the option of sitting or recusing before Special Judge Lineberger was appointed. The record before us suggests that he was not. That issue is different from the issue of whether Judge Neal later waived his authority by permitting Special Judge Lineberger to proceed with the case. All of this points up the fact that Judge Neal needs to be a party to this original proceeding. The crux of this case is whether Special Judge Lineberger has already asserted jurisdiction over the matter and, if so, at what point did he do so. For example, did he do so before Respondent Wilson suggested that he disqualify in December 1994? A corollary issue is why did Respondent Wilson not raise the issue of Special Judge Lineberger’s lack of authority earlier. Did he waive his rights by not doing so? And, again, does Judge Neal not have a right to be heard in this? After all, it is his authority that is in question. The majority is undoubtedly right that in certain certiorari cases the trial judge has not been made a party. But this court has also stated most recently that a writ of certiorari is issued to direct a judge to perform a duty. Dougan v. Gray, 318 Ark. 6, 884 S.W.2d 239 (1994). Manifestly, a writ of certiorari issues to prevent a judge from acting in excess of his jurisdiction. Bates v. McNeil, 318 Ark. 764, 888 S.W.2d 642 (1994). This is just such a case. Indeed, the majority has granted the writ, determined that Judge Neal acted in excess of his authority, and vacated his orders without hearing his side of things. That is fundamentally unfair. Judge Neal is clearly a necessary party under Ark. R. Civ. R 19. We are on shaky and uncertain ground in my opinion when we remove him from the case without giving him a voice in the matter. I would allow supplemental briefs and advance the case on the docket so that it could be decided in September of this year. The suggestion of a conflict of interest on the part of Judge Neal due to a prior professional relationship with Respondent Wilson has been injected into this matter by Petitioner James Neal. I would allow an amendment to the petition, should petitioner James Neal choose to do so, and supplemental briefs on this issue also. Because I would stay the trial, join Judge Neal as a party, permit supplemental briefs, and expedite the matter, I respectfully dissent. Roaf, J., joins.