Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Orders topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Arkansas Supreme Court issues multiple per curiam procedural orders, denies rehearing petition
Summary
On Dec. 12, 2024 the court denied a rehearing petition in CR-24-185 and handled procedural motions in a range of criminal and civil cases, granting and denying requests for supplemental records, word-count expansions and extensions.
The Arkansas Supreme Court on Dec. 12, 2024 denied a petition for rehearing in a criminal appeal and issued multiple per curiam procedural rulings in other pending matters, according to the court’s published proceedings for that day.
The court’s published per curiam entry lists that rehearing was denied in CR-24-185, State of Arkansas v. Lee Earnest Clarks, 2nd; Chief Justice John Dan Kemp and Justices Baker and Hudson recorded that they would have granted rehearing. The proceedings further record discrete procedural rulings in several other matters: the court granted a motion for leave to file a reply in Ray Dansby v. State of Arkansas (CR-94-30); granted a motion to supplement the record and stay briefing in Devon Romick v. State of Arkansas (CR-24-353); denied an appellant’s motion to expand word-count limits but granted an alternative extension of time in Timothy Clevenger v. State of Arkansas (CR-24-517); and granted an extension to comply with a writ of certiorari in Shawna Cash v. State of Arkansas (CR-24-598), among other procedural entries.
Why it matters: these per curiam orders affect the immediate procedural posture of the listed appeals, including briefing schedules, record supplementation, and procedural compliance deadlines. The court’s notations sometimes record which justices would have ruled differently on rehearing petitions or other procedural motions.
Additional procedural rulings listed in the day’s proceedings include denials and grants of motions for costs (CV-23-477 and CV-24-295), motions for admission pro hac vice (CV-24-659), motions for extension of time to file briefs (multiple listed cases), and rulings on pro se motions for relief in many separate appeals. The court’s per curiam minutes do not set out the reasoning for each procedural ruling.
Reporters and parties should consult the full docket entries or subsequent opinions for the complete orders and any explanation of the court’s reasoning.
