Nov. 21, 2024 — The Arkansas Supreme Court issued a set of per curiam orders on Nov. 21 that included a denial of rehearing in CR-06-1346 (Richard Leon Strong v. State of Arkansas) and denials of petitions for review in several civil dockets.

The proceedings sheet lists multiple petitions for review denied that day, including CV-22-152 (Angela Styles v. James Styles), CV-22-605 (Estate of Mrs. George Howard, Jr. v. Dr. John Harris), CV-23-152 (Chad Kelley v. Bryan Adams et al.), and CV-23-222 (Diamond K Investments, Inc. v. 1330 LLC). The published entries note that Justice Shawn A. Womack would have granted review in at least two matters and that some justices did not participate in specific entries where noted.

The court also granted or denied a number of procedural motions recorded on the same sheet. Examples in the published proceedings include:
- CR-23-656 (Keenan Letrell Hudson v. State of Arkansas): appellant’s motion for extension of time to file supplemental record and transcript granted.
- CR-24-646 (State v. Ronald Russell): appellee’s motion to dismiss improper State’s appeal was taken with the case.
- CV-22-690 (Michael W. Gates and Susan J. Gates v. Larry Walther): appellants’ motion for costs denied (with a note that Justice Webb would have granted).
- CV-24-194 (Michel Pardue and Karen Pardue v. Cross Keys Property Owners’ Association): appellants’ motion to accept late filing and request for clerk to file granted (with Chief Justice Kemp noted as dissenting in the proceedings sheet).

The court’s published list also includes a short note, “In Re Amendment to Administrative Plan for the Sixth Judicial Circuit. See per curiam this date,” indicating the court entered an amendment to the administrative plan for that circuit on the same date.

These entries are recorded as per curiam orders in the Nov. 21 proceedings sheet; the published docket lines do not include full opinions explaining the court’s reasoning for the listed denials and grants. Where the proceedings sheet records individual justices’ positions (for example, ‘‘Womack, J., would grant’’), it notes those positions without attaching a written concurrence or dissent in the published proceedings summary.

Practitioners and parties seeking details about the court’s reasoning or vote breakdown for any listed docket should consult the court clerk or the specific docket entries for any issued opinions or supplemental orders.