# Seeco, Inc. v. Stewmon

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · December 8, 2016 · 506 S.W.3d 828

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9870078

## Case

- **Full name:** SEECO, INC., DeSoto Gathering Company, LLC, and Southwestern Midstream Services Company, Appellants v. Sara STEWMON Et Al., Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** December 8, 2016
- **Citations:** 506 S.W.3d 828; 2016 Ark. 435; 2016 Ark. LEXIS 367
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Wood
- **Judges:** Josephine Linker Hart
- **Cited by:** 11 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/9870078

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9870078. Public record. Not legal advice.