Court Opinion

ID: 9768867
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 13:53:25.443569+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:47.681254
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Robert H. Dudley, Justice. We deny the petition for rehearing, but write to supplement the original opinion on one issue.  The original opinion states that we do not consider a statute passed during the pendency of an appeal. That statement is in error. In fact, we have recently considered two (2) acts passed after the trial court ruled. Treiber v. Hess, 301 Ark. 97, 782 S.W.2d 43 (1990); Nathaniel v. Forrest City School Dist. No. 7, 300 Ark. 513, 780 S.W.2d 539 (1989). We have long done so. Van Hook v. McNeil Monument Co., 107 Ark. 292, 155 S.W. 110 (1913). However, “the legislature cannot, by enactment of a retrospective statute, exercise a power in its nature clearly judicial.” Federal Express Corp. v. Skelton, 265 Ark. 187, 196, 578 S.W.2d 1 (1979). It is prohibited from doing so by the separation of powers doctrine. Federal Express Corp. v. Skelton, supra. Thus, even if we construed the act in this case to be retroactive, we would not allow it to retroactively annul a court decision. Rehearing denied.