Court Opinion

ID: 9640970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:20:00.599472+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:34.305067
License: Public Domain

Paul E. Danielson, Justice, dissenting. I disagree that the circuit court in the instant case is wholly without jurisdic- tion. Here, the plaintiffs have alleged causes of action, which are clearly within the jurisdiction of the circuit court. Moreover, the instant class-action suit involves much more than a simple complaint regarding rates. As we have said time and time again, a writ of prohibition should be used with great caution and forbearance and should only issue in cases of extreme necessity. See, e.g., Ulmer v. Circuit Court of Polk County, 366 Ark. 212, 234 S.W.3d 290 (2006); Hatfield v. Thomas, 351 Ark. 377, 93 S.W.3d 671 (2002); Monroe Auto Equip. Co. v. Partlow, 311 Ark. 633, 846 S.W.2d 637 (1993). Indeed, we have held that the writ is never issued to prohibit a circuit court from erroneously exercising its jurisdiction. See Jordan v. Circuit Court of Lee County, 366 Ark. 326, 235 S.W.3d 487 (2006); Cockrum v. Fox, 359 Ark. 508, 199 S.W.3d 69 (2004); Lenser v. McGowan, 358 Ark. 423, 191 S.W.3d 506 (2004). Because I believe that the majority is violating this long-held tenet of our jurisprudence, I respectfully dissent. Hannah, C.J., joins.