Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Court Procedural Docket topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arkansas Supreme Court issues multiple per curiam orders, including rehearing denials and procedural grants
Summary
The Sept. 12, 2024, docket lists per curiam orders denying rehearings in two criminal appeals and granting various procedural motions such as pro hac vice admissions, record supplements, and petitions to transfer or dismiss in several civil and criminal matters.
On Sept. 12, 2024, the Arkansas Supreme Court published a series of per curiam orders resolving a range of procedural matters across criminal and civil dockets. The court denied petitions for rehearing in at least two criminal appeals and issued multiple orders granting or denying routine procedural motions.
The docket opens by listing rehearings denied in CR-89-60 (Robert Lee Williford, Jr. v. State of Arkansas, Garland County) and CR-24-364 (Sharvelt Mister v. State of Arkansas, Sebastian County, Fort Smith District). The court also granted a motion to appear pro hac vice in CR-94-30 (Ray Dansby v. State of Arkansas) and granted an appellee’s motion to supplement the record and for extension in CR-23-731 (Hunter Delagarza). Additional procedural dispositions in the per curiam orders include grants of motions to file belated briefs, motions to transfer or consolidate records, and permissions to file substituted briefs across several civil appeals.
The docket records some individual justices’ separate notations (for example, Chief Justice Kemp and Justice Webb are noted as having differing views on some motions), but the per curiam list itself contains the court’s procedural dispositions without full opinions attached. Several pro se motions were dismissed as moot and other petitions—for example, petitions for writs of mandamus or certiorari—were denied on procedural grounds in multiple matters. The docket entries identify case numbers and lower-court origins for each item but do not attach detailed orders explaining the court’s reasoning on substantive law for most matters.
Readers seeking the full text of any particular order should consult the court’s published opinions or the clerk’s office for the specific filings cited by case number on the Sept. 12 docket.
