Opinion

City of Malvern v. Jenkins

  • 425 S.W.3d 711
  • 2013 Ark. 24
  • 2013 Ark. LEXIS 31
Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Filed
Jan 31, 2013
Status
Published
Author
Hart
On the bench
Baker, Hart, Hoofman
Cited by
10 cases
Authority
More cited than 21.6%

The opinion

JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice, dissenting.

The majority reverses a ruling that the circuit court did not make and addresses issues not properly before this court. Rule 2(a)(10) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure-Civil allows an interlocutory appeal from an “order denying ... summary judgment based on the defense of sovereign immunity.” Here, the circuit court denied the City of Malvern’s motion for summary judgment, finding that “the question of fact as to whether [Malvern] fulfilled its obligations under the terms and conditions of the written easement is a matter of contract, not of tort, and therefore not barred by the immunity statute.” It is evident that the court did not deny Malvern’s motion for summary judgment based on a defense of sovereign immunity to tort. Instead, the court ruled that there were questions of fact sounding in contract to be tried. Consequently, there was no ruling on tort immunity, and the appeal should be dismissed. Arkansas Lottery Comm’n v. Alpha Mktg., 2012 Ark. 23, at 5-6 , 386 S.W.3d 400, 403-04 . By addressing the issues raised by Malvern, the majority exceeds the bounds of Rule 2(a)(10) and renders an opinion that is advisory.

BAKER, J., joins.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.