Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Reviews Denied topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arkansas Supreme Court denies petitions for review in numerous criminal and civil appeals
Summary
The court issued per curiam orders on Sept. 26, 2024, denying petitions for review in a broad list of criminal and civil cases; several individual justices noted they would have granted review in select matters.
On Sept. 26, 2024, the Arkansas Supreme Court issued per curiam orders denying petitions for review in a number of criminal and civil appeals, according to the court’s docket summary. The list includes criminal appeals such as CR-22-748 (Oscar Perez v. State of Arkansas) and CR-23-131 (Jason Adkins v. State of Arkansas) and a range of civil matters, with docket notations showing some justices would have granted review in isolated cases.
Why it matters: denial of a petition for review at the state’s highest court generally leaves the lower-court result in place. The docket specifically notes instances where individual justices dissented from denial or would have granted review — for example, the docket records that Justices Womack and Webb "would grant" in CR-23-567 (Lillian Houselog v. State of Arkansas) and that Chief Justice Kemp did not participate in some entries.
Details from the docket summary: the per curiam orders list dozens of case numbers across the criminal and civil dockets (for example, CR-23-431 Zachary Vermillion v. State of Arkansas; CR-23-483 Jerry Lee Washington v. State of Arkansas; CV-22-202 Roberto Rodriguez v. Magaraju Chakka et al.; CV-22-211 Tracey Scott and Lorrenzo Hampton v. RevClaims, LLC and St. Bernards Hospital). The docket notes particular judicial participation where applicable (for example, "Kemp, C.J., not participating" for CR-23-431 and other entries).
Clarifying notations on the docket: several docket entries record that individual justices would grant or would dismiss as moot; for instance, Webb, J., is noted as "would grant" in CV-22-786 (Patricia Ann Betzinger v. U.S. Bank, N.A.), and Womack and Webb, JJ., are recorded as "would dismiss as moot" for CV-23-212 (Jim R. Nash v. John Nash, Jr., and Pam Nash Glover). The per curiam summary on the docket does not provide the court’s full reasoning for each denial.
The denials leave lower-court rulings intact unless a party subsequently files a motion or other procedural step reflected elsewhere on the docket.
