Taylor v. Biba
2014 Ark. 22
| Ark. | 2014Background
- Trevor Taylor and employer Rick Taylor, Inc. appealed a Pope County District Court judgment in favor of Fran Biba after a car accident; district court entered judgment on March 4, 2013.
- Taylor filed an appeal to the circuit court on March 21, 2013 by lodging a certified copy of the district-court docket sheet.
- The certified docket sheet Taylor filed was in fact certified but omitted an entry for Biba’s November 15, 2012 “Answer to Counterclaim.”
- Biba moved to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction under Ark. Dist. Ct. R. 9(b), arguing strict compliance is required both as to filing and contents of the docket sheet.
- Taylor argued that strict compliance is required only for filing the certified docket sheet (vests jurisdiction) while the contents of the docket sheet require only substantial compliance.
- The circuit court granted Biba’s motion, finding Rule 9(b) requires strict compliance as to listing all docket entries; Taylor appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Rule 9(b) requires strict compliance as to filing the certified docket sheet and its contents to vest circuit-court jurisdiction | Taylor: Filing the certified docket sheet must be strictly complied with to vest jurisdiction; the contents of the docket sheet need only substantially comply | Biba: Both the filing and the contents of the certified docket sheet must strictly comply with Rule 9(b) | The court held that strict compliance with filing the certified docket sheet is the definitive act that vests jurisdiction; Taylor’s filing satisfied Rule 9(b) and dismissal for lack of jurisdiction was error |
Key Cases Cited
- Johnson v. Dawson, 365 S.W.3d 913 (Ark. 2010) (interpreting Rule 9 and requiring strict compliance)
- Rogers v. Tudor Insurance Co., 925 S.W.2d 395 (Ark. 1996) (discussing relationship between district-court docket filing and appellate notice requirements)
- Richard v. Union Pac. R. Co., 388 S.W.3d 422 (Ark. 2012) (standard of review is de novo when construing court rules)