Court Opinion

ID: 9954908
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-27 14:01:41.14583+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:15:06.250866
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 209
                  ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                     DIVISION II
                                     No. CV-21-282

 MMSC, LLC                                    Opinion Delivered March 27, 2024

                              APPELLANT
                                              APPEAL FROM THE WASHINGTON
                                              COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
 V.                                           [NO. 72CV-19-1297]

 WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS; HONORABLE JOHN C. THREET,
 QUORUM COURT OF WASHINGTON JUDGE
 COUNTY, ARKANSAS; JOSEPH K.
 WOOD, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY   REMANDED
 AS COUNTY JUDGE; DINAH
 DICKERSON; CAROLINE COX;
 STEPHENIE FOSTER; MARTY
 MATLOCK; AND THE HIGHLAND
 COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
                        APPELLEES

                            ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

      This case involves the denial of a conditional-use permit for surface mining in

Washington County. In 2018, MMSC, LLC (“MMSC” or “appellant”), applied for a

conditional-use permit to operate a red-dirt mine on approximately twenty acres in

Washington County. On February 14, 2019, the Washington County planning board

denied MMSC’s conditional-use permit. On April 18, 2019, the quorum court voted to

affirm the planning board’s decision and memorialized that decision in an ordinance.
       MMSC appealed the quorum court’s action to the Washington County circuit court.

At that point, Dinah Dickerson, Caroline Cox, Stephenie Foster, Marty Matlock, and the

Highland Community Association moved to intervene, and the circuit court granted that

motion.

       On February 11, 2021, the circuit court held a final hearing in the matter and entered

its final order on March 17, 2021. The circuit court ruled in favor of the appellees—the

quorum court and the intervenors—holding that the decision to adopt an ordinance denying

appellant’s request for a conditional-use permit was not arbitrary, capricious, or

unreasonable. The circuit court also held that Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-17-211

(Repl. 2013) is unconstitutional because it is a violation of the separation-of-powers clause

in the Arkansas Constitution.

       The appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and the electronic record was lodged on

June 23, 2021. It is 7,091 pages. The first 61 pages are various motions, responses, and replies

that are individually bookmarked. The final 449 pages are also motions, responses, replies,

orders, and letters that are individually bookmarked. The middle 6,581 pages are

bookmarked simply as “Administrative Records Exhibit.”

       The 6,581-page “Administrative Records Exhibit” appears to include documents from

the Washington County planning office and planning board, maps, e-mails, deeds, and at

least one affidavit. The documents are not bookmarked, nor is it clear what pleading or other

portion of the record they are related to.

                                               2
         Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Civil 7(b)(1) requires that “[t]he record shall

be saved as searchable and bookmarked portable document format (PDF) files. Bookmarks

shall be made to each document in the record and at the beginning of each witness’s

testimony.”

         Last year, this court remanded a case for additional factual findings. Duensing v. Ark.

State Med. Bd., 2023 Ark. App. 226, at 4–5, 666 S.W.3d 133, 136. At the end of the opinion,

the court noted that pages 11 through 457 of the electronic record

         includes the transcript from the Board hearing. However, none of the
         documents or testimony are bookmarked, and the documents do not appear
         in any type of order. Before a subsequent appeal, we urge the parties to review
         the rules on electronic records and record contents. . . .[A]nd counsel should
         carefully review the rules and ensure no other deficiencies exist.

Id. at 7, 666 S.W.3d at 138.

         The same deficiencies are present in this electronic record but on a larger scale. Pages

62 through 6,642 are not bookmarked, and the documents do not appear in any type of

order.

         For this reason, we remand this case to correct the electronic record. The electronic

record must comply with Rule 7(b)(1) and be refiled within sixty days.

         Remanded.

         HARRISON, C.J., and THYER, J. agree.

         Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP, by: Joshua A. Ashley, Kael K. Bowling, and Martin A.

Kasten, for appellant.

                                                3
      Noland Law Firm, PA, by: Ross Noland; and Brian Lester and Garrett Harlan, Washington

County Attorneys, for appellees.

                                            4