refusing to entertain other issues in an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 2(a)(9) under the guise of a challenge to class certification
How later courts described this case
- refusing to entertain other issues in an interlocutory appeal pursuant to Rule 2(a)(9) under the guise of a challenge to class certification
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Rhonda K. Wood, Justice, concurring.
I concur for the same reasons set out in SEECO, Inc. v. Snow, 2016 Ark. 444 , 506 S.W.3d 206 . In addition, I agree with the majority’s conclusion that this case is an interlocutory appeal of a class-action certification and, accordingly, our review is limited to that issue. Therefore, I do not join the majority’s discussions, which are arguably dicta, regarding the existence and application of concurrent jurisdiction and the court’s superintending authority. The proper mechanism for the appellant to raise these arguments is | ..¿through a writ of certiorari or writ of prohibition. Although appellants mentioned a writ in their prayer for relief, it has not been sufficiently raised for this court to consider it as part of their interlocutory appeal.
Brill, C.J., joins.