Cooper v. Circuit Court of Faulkner County
430 S.W.3d 1
Ark.2013Background
- Conway (plaintiff) filed a land-condemnation action against Cooper and Dowell (defendants); trial originally set for October 12, 2012.
- On October 11, 2012 the circuit court issued a clarification order; defendants sought a continuance the morning of trial, claiming the clarification limited their damages argument.
- The court granted a continuance on October 12, 2012 conditioned on defendants paying Conway’s trial-preparation attorney’s fees and costs; no filing-prohibition was mentioned at that hearing.
- After transfer of the case, the Faulkner County court entered a January 31, 2013 order reiterating the continuance, awarding $20,805 to Conway and $540 to the clerk, and forbidding defendants from filing any further pleadings until the amounts were paid within five days.
- Cooper and Dowell petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court for extraordinary relief (writ of prohibition or certiorari), arguing the filing prohibition and fee award exceeded the trial court’s jurisdiction and were gross abuses of discretion; the Supreme Court stayed proceedings and considered the petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a writ of prohibition is appropriate to vacate the January 31, 2013 order | Cooper & Dowell: prohibition proper because trial court acted without jurisdiction and abused discretion | Conway: prohibition improper because the order already existed and prohibition is for courts wholly without jurisdiction; relief via certiorari or appeal | Writ of prohibition denied as petition attacked an already-entered order; prohibition is unavailable |
| Whether a writ of certiorari should issue to rescind the filing-prohibition portion of the order | Cooper & Dowell: filing ban exceeded jurisdiction, denied access to courts, and no adequate alternative remedy exists | Conway: defendants can appeal after final judgment; issuing writ would cause piecemeal review and defendants sought the continuance so cannot complain | Writ of certiorari granted as the record on its face showed the court exceeded jurisdiction and committed a gross abuse of discretion by prohibiting filings; no other adequate remedy existed |
| Whether the court should reach the merits of the fee award ($21,345) | Cooper & Dowell: fee award exceeded jurisdiction and was a gross abuse of discretion | Conway: (defended award and enforcement mechanisms) | Court declined to reach the fee issue because the continuance conditions were inextricably linked; directed the trial court to rescind the entire January 31, 2013 order |
| Whether defendants were left without an adequate remedy absent certiorari | Cooper & Dowell: the filing ban is interlocutory and not appealable, so no adequate remedy exists | Conway: interlocutory discretion calls for later appeal; piecemeal intervention unwarranted | Court held no adequate remedy existed for the filing-prohibition and certiorari was appropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- White v. Palo, 380 S.W.3d 405 (Ark. 2011) (writ of prohibition appropriate only when court wholly without jurisdiction)
- Int’l Paper Co. v. Clark Cnty. Circuit Court, 289 S.W.3d 103 (Ark. 2008) (prerogative writs are narrow and issued with great caution)
- Allen v. Circuit Court of Pulaski Cnty., 303 S.W.3d 70 (Ark. 2009) (writ of prohibition unavailable to correct an already-entered order)
- Southern Farm Bureau Cas. Ins. Co. v. Parsons, 429 S.W.3d 215 (Ark. 2013) (scope of certiorari: do not look beyond the face of the record)
- Casement v. State, 884 S.W.2d 593 (Ark. 1994) (certiorari lies to correct proceedings erroneous on the face of the record)
- Lupo v. Lineberger, 855 S.W.2d 293 (Ark. 1993) (certiorari as superintending control when no other mode of review)
- Arkansas Game & Fish Comm’n v. Herndon, 226 S.W.3d 776 (Ark. 2006) (no other adequate remedy exists when issuing court lacked legal authority)
- Chiodini v. Lock, 281 S.W.3d 728 (Ark. 2008) (certiorari appropriate for plain, manifest, and gross abuse of discretion on the face of the record)
- Conner v. Simes, 139 S.W.3d 476 (Ark. 2004) (writ lies where judge acted in excess of authority)
- Christopher v. Harbury, 536 U.S. 403 (2002) (access-to-courts principles)
- Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U.S. 371 (1971) (due process includes right to be heard)
- Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817 (1977) (access must be adequate, effective, and meaningful)