Court Opinion

ID: 9661057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 22:27:57.198149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:25.084897
License: Public Domain

Paul Ward, Justice, dissenting. The majority opinion contains this sentence: “We deny the petition for failure to abstract the record in accordance with Bule 9(d). ” It then proceeds to state the provisions of that rule. The above rule has no application in this kind of a proceeding. Applicable in a prohibition proceeding before this Court is Buie number 16 which we applied less than ten days ago in the case of Phillip Carroll v. Phil Stratton No. 4530 where we issued a temporary writ of prohibition on a petition without any briefs or abstract of the record. There, we not only granted a temporary writ but we specifically told the petitioner to proceed under Bule 16. This Buie, in material parts, reads: PETITIONS FOB PBOH1BITION, CEBTIOBA-BI, ETC. “In cases in which the jurisdiction of this court is in fact appellate although in form original, such as petitions for writs of prohibition or certiorari, the pleadings with their exhibits are treated as the record, and the pleader is required to file only the original typewritten copy ...” The majority opinion also states that the only indication “showing the enjoined conduct” was the order of the Commissioner. That this statement is wholly unfounded is revealed by a casual reading of the Commissioner's petition filed in this Court, and his brief. Also, pursuant to said Rule 16, we can consider the entire record which was filed here together with the petition. Prom the above sources it can be easily ascertained that the Commissioner makes it abundantly clear that he was, when stopped by the Respondent, proceeding-under Árk. Stat. Ann. § 66-2126 (Repl. 1966) which says he “shall act in a quasi-judicial capacity”, and under the succeeding section which says that when he makes an order or refuses to “grant or hold a hearing after demand” an appeal “shall be granted as a matter of right to the Circuit Court. . .” (Emphasis added.) Tn view of the above this Court should not only consider the petition on its merits but should also grant it, based on the following statement appearing in the majority opinion: “. . . if the matter at issue before the ■Commissioner is one which he is given authority to regulate, then the Chancery Court would have no jurisdiction. . .” It appears that the only reason for the Respondent’s action in this case was that the affected Insurance Company might suffer a financial loss if the Commissioner performed the duties imposed on him by the statutes. If such procedure is sanctioned by this Court the Arkansas Insurance Code [enacted to protect the people] might as well be repealed, because any insurance company that should be investigated will necessarily suffer a financial loss when its deficiency is exposed. Harris, C. J. and JoNes, J., join in this dissent.