Court Opinion

ID: 9870078
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 19:48:12.846816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:40.908893
License: Public Domain

Rhonda K. Wood, Justice, concurring. I concur for the same reasons set out in SEECO, Inc. v. Snow, 2016 Ark. 444, 506 S.W.3d 206. In addition, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that this case is an interlocutory appeal of a class-action certification and, accordingly, our review is limited to that issue. Therefore, I do not join the majority’s discussions, which are arguably dicta, regarding the existence and application of concurrent jurisdiction and the court’s superintending authority. The proper mechanism for the appellant to raise these arguments is | ..¿through a writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition. Although appellants mentioned a writ in their prayer for relief, it has not been sufficiently raised for this court to consider it as part of their interlocutory appeal. Brill, C.J., joins.