Kelley v. Shults.dissent
2017 Ark. 112
Ark.2017Background
- Circuit court (from the bench) ordered the State to disclose unredacted package insert and label for potassium chloride within 30 minutes; oral order issued but not yet reduced to a written order at that time.
- The State immediately appealed and moved for an emergency stay to prevent disclosure.
- A written order was entered later, but the State did not supplement the appellate record with that written order before filing the stay application.
- The Supreme Court majority dismissed the stay request for lack of jurisdiction because the written order was not in the record when the emergency stay application was filed.
- Justice Rhonda K. Wood (dissenting) argued the court should have ordered the State to supplement the record under Ark. R. App. P. – Civ. 6(e) instead of dismissing, asserting the filing requirement is procedural, not jurisdictional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Arkansas Supreme Court had jurisdiction to consider the State's emergency stay when the circuit court's written order was not yet filed in the record | State: Rule 6-1 permits expedited relief using certified pleadings; oral order existed and Rule 6-1 requirements were met, so court may act | Majority: Lack of a filed written order means the record is incomplete and the court lacks jurisdiction to consider the stay | Majority dismissed the stay request for lack of jurisdiction; dissent would have ordered supplementation of the record and considered the stay request |
| Whether the requirement to file a written order before appellate review is jurisdictional or procedural | State: Filing requirement is procedural; failure to file should not be raised sua sponte where no party objected | Majority: Treated absence of written order as jurisdictional impediment to the stay request | Dissent: Requirement is procedural; court should direct supplementation under Ark. R. App. P. – Civ. 6(e) |
| Appropriate remedy when a material document (the written order) was omitted from the appellate record after an oral bench order | State: Court should allow supplementation and consider the emergency application on its merits | Majority: Dismissal for lack of jurisdiction due to missing filed order | Dissent: Court has authority to correct omissions and should order a supplemental record rather than dismissing |
| Whether final-order jurisdictional issues should be addressed at the emergency-stay stage | State: Emergency stay is distinct from merits/finality; final-order issues not yet presented | Majority: Emphasized jurisdictional prerequisite as basis for dismissal | Dissent: Finality not at issue in this procedural posture; do not raise sua sponte here |
Key Cases Cited
- Summerville v. Thrower, 369 Ark. 231 (Ark. 2007) (distinguishes procedural rules from jurisdictional ones)
- Bradley v. State, 2015 Ark. 144 (Ark. 2015) (advocates limiting the label "jurisdictional" to subject-matter and personal jurisdiction)
- Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443 (U.S. 2004) (discusses distinction between jurisdictional rules and claim-processing rules)
- Kowalski v. Rose Drugs of Dardanelle, Inc., 2009 Ark. 524 (Ark. 2009) (addresses court's obligation to raise final-order jurisdictional issues sua sponte)