Court Opinion

ID: 9684386
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:55:21.658204+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:55.374656
License: Public Domain

Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice, dissenting. The per stopinion iJustice ce, dissenting opinion (issued on November 6, 2002) accurately recite how this matter came to be considered by the Supreme Court. Upon further reflection, and with great respect for each justice’s individual vote in this matter, I must withdraw my oral vote of November 5, 2002, and dissent for lack of jurisdiction. This court is a deliberative body whose function in large part is to review records, consider legal arguments, and determine if error resulted in the trial court proceedings. Dean v. Williams, 339 Ark. 439, 6 S.W.3d 89 (1999). All of our procedural rules, including those for petitions for extraordinary relief and expedited consideration, require a filing with the Supreme Court in order to invoke the court’s jurisdiction. See Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-1 (a). In this case, when six members of the court voted orally to void the trial court’s order, we did so without any record to review. We were only apprised of the situation by the attorneys’ oral representations during a conference call on the night of the November 5 election. The six justices then considered the legal arguments and rendered a decision orally in less than twenty minutes. Even under these extraordinary circumstances, I am unable to ignore our rules of appellate procedure and jurisdiction in order to rectify any error by the trial court, be it jurisdictional or otherwise. For the aforementioned reasons, and with deep regret, I respectfully withdraw my oral vote of November 5, 2002, and dissent.