Kelley v. Shults.dissent
2017 Ark. 112
Ark.2017Background
- The circuit court orally ordered the State to disclose unredacted package insert and label for potassium chloride within thirty minutes.
- The State immediately appealed and moved for an emergency stay in the Arkansas Supreme Court under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-1.
- At the time of the emergency motion, the circuit court had not yet reduced its oral pronouncement to a written order filed with the clerk; a written order was filed the next day but was not included in the appellate record.
- The majority dismissed the State’s stay request on the ground that a written filed order was required for this court to consider the emergency stay.
- Justice Wood (dissenting), joined by Justice Womack, argued the proper remedy was to order the State to supplement the record with the subsequently filed written order and proceed to consider the stay.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a written, filed circuit-court order is jurisdictionally required before the Supreme Court may consider an emergency stay under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-1 | State: Rule 6-1 allows expedited relief using certified pleadings as the record; lack of a filed written order is procedural, not jurisdictional | Shults: Court (majority) treated the absence of a filed written order as fatal to jurisdiction over the stay request | Majority: Dismissed the appeal/stay request for lack of a filed written order; treated filing requirement as jurisdictional |
| Whether the appellate court may sua sponte raise the filing defect when no party objected | State: Because neither party objected, the court should not raise the filing defect sua sponte at the emergency stage | Shults: Majority treated the defect as jurisdictional and thus subject to sua sponte consideration | Dissent: Court should not raise procedural defect sua sponte here; should permit supplementation |
| Whether the appellate court may order supplementation of the record with the subsequently filed written order | State: Ark. R. App. P. – Civ. 6(e) authorizes correction/supplementation of omitted material; court should order supplementation | Shults: Majority did not order supplementation before dismissing | Dissent: Court should direct supplementation and then consider the stay request |
| Whether the final-order jurisdictional question applies at this early emergency-stay stage | State: This is an interim stay request, not a final-order appeal; final-order jurisdiction not yet implicated | Shults: Majority treated procedural filing as jurisdictional at this stage | Held (dissent): Final-order issue is distinct and not addressed at this emergency stay stage |
Key Cases Cited
- Summerville v. Thrower, 369 Ark. 231, 253 S.W.3d 415 (2007) (distinguishing procedural rules from jurisdictional requirements)
- Bradley v. State, 2015 Ark. 144, 459 S.W.3d 302 (2015) (argument that courts should reserve "jurisdictional" label for true adjudicatory limits)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (2004) (Supreme Court guidance on distinguishing claim-processing rules and jurisdictional rules)
- Kowalski v. Rose Drugs of Dardanelle, Inc., 2009 Ark. 524, 357 S.W.3d 432 (2009) (noting appellate court may raise final-order jurisdictional issues sua sponte)