Court Opinion

ID: 9630865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:23:15.594149+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:07:45.477753
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. Today's opinion represents a sea change in this court’s willingness to hear interlocutory defenses by emergency writ. Fleretofore, we have refused to do so where the remedy of appeal was available, whether the interlocutory issue concerned a discovery dispute, Lupo v. Lineberger, 313 Ark. 315, 855 S.W.2d 294 (1995), or preclusion of a trial for wrongful death of an unborn fetus, Conner v. Simes, 355 Ark. 422, 139 S.W.3d 476 (2003). The clear result of today’s opinion is that a door has now been opened for a barrage of emergency writs seeking to prevent trial on various defenses such as res judicata; Rule 41, which is the situation in the instant case; Rule 12(b) matters such as lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficiency of process, insufficiency of service of process, failure to state facts upon which relief can be granted, failure to join a necessary party and pendency of another action; and summary-judgment denials, just to name a few. While this may initially have a seductive appeal as seemingly nipping an unnecessary trial on the merits in the bud, it runs directly counter to one criterion for writs of certiorari, which is that there be no adequate remedy available by appeal. Moreover, it adds another step to the litigation process since we are now sanctioning an emergency procedure, certiorari, for hearing interlocutory issues. No doubt, in the months ahead, certiorari will become a commonplace vehicle for raising procedural issues and discovery matters to this court before trial. The bottom line is that this court has now approved piecemeal appeals. For these reasons, I join Justice Imber’s dissent and write only to underscore what has happened today for the benefit of the bench and bar. Glaze and Imber, JJ., join this dissent.