Court Opinion

ID: 9758242
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:17:08.381413+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:28:48.330878
License: Public Domain

Larry D. Vaught, Judge, dissenting. I dissent from the denial of rehearing. Although the reasoning and authority of the majority appears to be sound on its face, I respectfully disagree because I believe that the law must make sense. If the progression of law is not logical it cannot be sustained, and the decision in this case is not a logical extension of prior case law. Like Judge Gladwin in his concurring opinion, I believe this case mandates an absurd conclusion. However, I would take the next logical step and correct the absurdity, or at least invite the Arkansas Supreme Court to do so. I am most troubled by the fact that in this case there was no intent to refile shown. The majority, in its initial opinion of September 20, 2006, relies on Haile v. AP&L, 322 Ark. 29, 907 S.W.2d 122 (1995), and Ratzlaff v. Franz Foods of Ark., 255 Ark. 373, 500 S.W.2d 379 (1973), for the general rule that a party with several claims against another party may not take a voluntary non-suit on one claim and appeal judgment as to the other claim when it is clear that the intent is to refile the non-suited claim.1 The emphasized language is never again mentioned in the opinion and because the issue was raised sua sponte by the court, neither party addressed its impact in their briefs. This case summarily abolishes the “clear intent to refile” requirement. Both Haile and Ratzlaff are clearly distinguishable. Haile was a partial summary-judgment case where the appellant’s attorney admitted in oral argument that he intended to refile the non-suited claims. Likewise, Ratzlaff is also a partial summary-judgment case where the court specifically held that the appellant sought to circumvent the policy of a statute by holding two counts in abeyance while seeking the supreme court’s opinion on the validity of the third count. Both of these cases rely on the “clear intent to refile” language, which is completely ignored by the majority here. The other obvious distinction between Haile, Ratzlaff, and the case at bar is that this case went to a jury and a judgment was rendered. The majority, citing John Cheeseman Trucking v. Dougan, 305 Ark. 49, 805 S.W.2d 69 (1991), concludes that there is no logical reason why the rule of Haile should not be applied to jury cases. But again, there is no mention of the “clear intent to refile” language. In Cheeseman liability and damages were bifurcated and the appellant sought to appeal the liability judgment before the damages trial. Clearly, such a factual predicate has no logical bearing on the case at bar. The importance of the “clear intent to refile” language is clarified by a brief look back in history. In Ratzlaff, Justice George Rose Smith quoted from Woodruff v. State, 1 Ark. 333 (1846): It is not in the power of a party to single out a single issue, even by the most solemn contract of record, and submit it to the consideration of the supreme court, so as to elicit the opinion of the supreme court upon the law or the fact of the particular issue. Such a judgment would not be final, as not embracing all the issues in the case, and consequendy it could not become the subject of an appeal or writ of error. The real object of the parties was to take the opinion of the supreme court upon the question of law arising upon the demurrer to the second plea, but in order to receive the benefit of that decision it became absolutely necessary that the circuit court should pass upon all the issues joined. Ratzlaff, 255 Ark. at 375, 500 S.W.2d at 380. Justice Smith also cited Yell v. Outlaw, 14 Ark. 621 (1854), which commented upon the quote from Woodruff. These two cases are the seminal cases on the issue at hand. In Woodruff, the parties agreed by written contract to demur to a question of law then submit that question only to the supreme court and if reversed, remand the case back to the trial court for trial of the factual issues. The supreme court held that the order was not final and that the parties could not piecemeal the appellate process. Thus, the “clear intent” of the parties was to circumvent the appellate process and to “refile” the factual issues after the legal issues were decided. In Yell, perhaps the only case where an actual jury was seated, several issues were joined for trial with separate defenses to each, but before the evidence was presented to the jury, the defendant raised the legal defense of nul tiel record (no such record). The court found for the defendant on this legal issue, and the plaintiff refused to proceed with trial and elected to file a petition for writ of error with the intent to try the factual issues if a reversal was obtained. Judgment was entered for the defendant on the whole case. The supreme court reasoned: In this case, where the judgment of the court below, in favor of the defendants, upon one good plea, going to the whole cause of action, was sufficient to bar it, and the plaintiff could not force the defendants, having the right to plead several matters, to withdraw their other defenses, the only course left for the plaintiff was to proceed with the trial, and to obtain or submit to a verdict of a jury upon the issues of fact, which they had been sworn to try. Yell, 14 Ark. at 624. The court held that the most favorable construction for the plaintiffs was that they elected to take a non-suit although that may not have been their intention. Although the question of law the plaintiffs attempted to appeal was erroneously decided, the court reasoned that “no writ of error lies to reverse the judgment consequent upon it.” Id. In other words the plaintiffs, by making a conscious choice to piecemeal the case, lost their right to appeal the judgment of the court. These two cases are the underpinnings of the rules that we are bound to follow in this case. Both decisions relied on the conscious decisions of parties to piecemeal an appeal. In every case cited and every case found, the record reflects that there was a clear intent of the party who non-suited a claim to refile that claim. Because that intent is not present in this case, I would grant the petition for rehearing.   In the majority’s supplemental opinion, they characterize Pro’s dismissal without prejudice of some of its claims as a clear intent to refile. This defies logic — a conclusion that requires inference can never be clear.