There were not many significant cases. After all, the Court of Appeals's session is just beginning and the Arkansas Supreme Court has not yet begun to issue substantive decisions. The Supreme Court held oral arguments this week. We anticipate that the Supreme Court will begin issuing substantive decisions next week.
Some of the important issues before the Court are related to some of the petition-initiated matters to be--or not to be--on the ballot in November. The Court is usually as quick on those as possible, given that they are often complex and contentious.
One of our members, Robert Tschiemer, participated in two of the cases that were decided this week. Robert was appellant's counsel in Stuart v. Stuart, 2012 Ark. App. 158. That case involved a trial court's order of alimony in favor of the wife. There was an interesting and informative discussion of the issues involved.
Robert Tschiemer also participated in Westwood v. McCormick. That case involved a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Arkansas Supreme Court. The writ was denied, so there was no written opinion, but it involves a question of service of process by mail.
Robert and his co-counsel have agreed to allow us to post his response here. We are hoping to get a copy of the original petition soon and we will post that as well.
Some of the important issues before the Court are related to some of the petition-initiated matters to be--or not to be--on the ballot in November. The Court is usually as quick on those as possible, given that they are often complex and contentious.
One of our members, Robert Tschiemer, participated in two of the cases that were decided this week. Robert was appellant's counsel in Stuart v. Stuart, 2012 Ark. App. 158. That case involved a trial court's order of alimony in favor of the wife. There was an interesting and informative discussion of the issues involved.
Robert Tschiemer also participated in Westwood v. McCormick. That case involved a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Arkansas Supreme Court. The writ was denied, so there was no written opinion, but it involves a question of service of process by mail.
Robert and his co-counsel have agreed to allow us to post his response here. We are hoping to get a copy of the original petition soon and we will post that as well.