Smith v. Wright , 2015 Ark. 38 ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                                     Cite as 
    2015 Ark. 38
    
                    SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                          No.   CV-14-427
    
    NATHANIEL SMITH, M.D., ET AL.                    Opinion Delivered   February 5, 2015
                       APPELLANTS
    
    V.                                               MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
    
    
    M. KENDALL WRIGHT AND JULIA E.
    WRIGHT, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
    BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR
    CHILDREN, G.D.W. AND P.L.W., ET
    AL.                                              RESPONSES ORDERED.
                          APPELLEES
    
                                           PER CURIAM
    
    
           On January 23, 2015, the Appellants filed a motion for oral argument. In their
    
    motion, the Appellants request that the court schedule a second oral argument and assert that
    
    three justices were not able to attend the first oral argument on November 20, 2014.1
    
    Appellants further contend that “Former Associate Justice Cliff Hoofman recused from this
    
    case and was replaced by Special Justice Robert W. McCorkindale. Justice Hoofman’s term
    
    has ended, and . . . Associate Justice Rhonda K. Wood replaced Justice Hoofman on the
    
    Court. Justice Wood was not present at the oral argument on November 20, 2014.”
    
           On January 27, 2015, the Appellees filed their response to the motion for [second] oral
    
    
    
           1
             Chief Justice Hannah did not attend the oral argument because he was attending an
    out-of-state court conference, but counsel was informed that he would participate and would
    have access to the oral-argument video. Justices Wynne and Wood were not on the court
    at that time.
                                         Cite as 
    2015 Ark. 38
    
    argument and urge this court to deny the request for a second oral argument as unnecessary.
    
    The Appellees assert that “Special Justice McCorkindale was specifically appointed by the
    
    Governor as a Special Justice to hear ‘this specific case.’ . . . Special Justice McCorkindale was
    
    present and participated in the oral argument held on November 20, 2014.                   Justice
    
    McCorkindale was appointed specifically to preside over this case.”
    
           In their pleadings, the parties have taken competing positions regarding the justices
    
    who will serve on this case. Accordingly, we direct the parties to advise this court by formal
    
    response, within thirty days of this order, of any authority supporting their respective positions
    
    regarding the justices who preside over this case. See, e.g., Hill v. State, 
    362 Ark. 659
    , 
    210 S.W.3d 123
     (2005).
    
           Responses ordered.
    
    
    
    
                                                    2
    

Document Info

DocketNumber: CV-14-427

Citation Numbers: 2015 Ark. 38

Judges: Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/5/2015

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016