# Parker v. Crow

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 7, 2010 · 368 S.W.3d 902

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5109880

## Case

- **Full name:** Tim S. PARKER, Attorney at Law, and Ramona Wilson, Circuit Clerk and Ex Officio Recorder of Carroll County, Arkansas v. Gerald K. CROW, Circuit Judge of Carroll County, Arkansas, Eastern and Western Districts, The Nineteenth Judicial District (East)
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 7, 2010
- **Citations:** 368 S.W.3d 902; 2010 Ark. 371; 2010 Ark. LEXIS 464
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Danielson
- **Judges:** Brown, Danielson, Wills
- **Cited by:** 22 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5109880

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that our “[s]uperintending control is an extraordinary power that is hampered by 10 no specific rules or means”

## Opinion text

DANIELSON, J., concurring in part, dissenting in part.
I concur in part with the majority that a writ of certiorari should issue; however, I dissent in part because I believe that is where our inquiry must end. The majority correctly states that certiorari lies to correct proceedings erroneous upon the face of the record when there is no other adequate remedy. However, it omits and disregards our longstanding rule that “cer-tiorari may not be used to look beyond the face of the record to ascertain the actual merits of a controversy, to control discretion, to review a finding upon facts or review the exercise of a court’s discretionary authority.” Evans v. Blankenship, 374 Ark. 104, 108 , 286 S.W.3d 137, 140 (2008) (emphasis added).
lisCertiorari is appropriate where a party claims that a lower court did not have jurisdiction to hear a claim or to issue a particular type of remedy. See id. As the majority correctly holds, the circuit court was wholly without jurisdiction to dissolve the judicial districts and acted in violation of amendment 80; thus, certiorari is proper. What is improper is the majority’s decision on the merits of the controversy, which is in direct contravention of this court’s rules for reviewing petitions for writs of certiorari.
Whether the bases for the circuit court’s dissolution of the judicial districts are meritorious is irrelevant for our purpose here; our sole concern is whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to issue the remedy it did. Here, it did not; thus, certiorari should issue, and our analysis should end there. It is for these reasons that I respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5109880. Public record. Not legal advice.