79 Arkansas opinions name it 2 courts 1992–2026 10 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Honeycutt v. Fostergreen2 sentences2018See Honeycutt v. Foster , 371 Ark. 545 , 268 S.W.3d 875 (2007). 2018See Honeycutt v. Foster , 371 Ark. 545 , 268 S.W.3d 875 (2007). | 5 | 7 |
Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayettevillegreen2 sentences2024See Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 2019 Ark. 28, at 3 , 566 S.W.3d 105, 108 . 2024See Protect Fayetteville v. City of Fayetteville, 2019 Ark. 28, at 3 , 566 S.W.3d 105, 108 . | 3 | 5 |
Kinchen v. Wilkinsgreen2 sentences2023The two recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine extend to (1) issues “capable of repetition, yet evading review” and (2) “issues . . . of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation.” Kinchen v. Wilkins, 367 Ark. 71 , 74– 75, 238 S.W.3d 94, 97 (2006). 2023The two recognized exceptions to the mootness doctrine extend to (1) issues “capable of repetition, yet evading review” and (2) “issues . . . of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation.” Kinchen v. Wilkins, 367 Ark. 71 , 74– 75, 238 S.W.3d 94, 97 (2006). | 3 | 5 |
Trujillo v. Stategreen2 sentences2024As a general rule, our appellate courts will not review issues that are moot. 1 To do so would be to render advisory opinions, which this court will not do.2 A case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then existing legal 1 Trujillo v. State, 2016 Ark. 49 , 483 S.W.3d 801 . 2 Id. 2 controversy.3 Two exceptions to the mootness doctrine have been recognized: (1) issues that are capable of repetition yet evade review and (2) issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest that, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. 4 Here, th 2024As a general rule, our appellate courts will not review issues that are moot. 1 To do so would be to render advisory opinions, which this court will not do.2 A case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then existing legal 1 Trujillo v. State, 2016 Ark. 49 , 483 S.W.3d 801 . 2 Id. 2 controversy.3 Two exceptions to the mootness doctrine have been recognized: (1) issues that are capable of repetition yet evade review and (2) issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest that, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. 4 Here, th | 2 | 4 |
Delancy v. Stategreen2 sentences2016See, e.g., Delancy v. State, 356 Ark. 259 , 151 S.W.3d 301 (2004). 2016See, e.g., Delancy v. State, 356 Ark. 259 , 151 S.W.3d 301 (2004). | 2 | 3 |
Jenkins v. Bogardgreen2 sentences2014See Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. 334 , 980 S.W.2d 270 (1998) (addressing issue of whether a violation of the two-to-seven day provision in Rule 78(d) for conducting hearings deprives a circuit court of jurisdiction); Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000) (addressing issues of 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. ___ necessary and indispensable parties and venue arising from a primary-election-eligibility contest); Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000) (addressing issue of standing arising from an eligibility contest in a primary election). 2014See Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. 334 , 980 S.W.2d 270 (1998) (addressing issue of whether a violation of the two-to-seven day provision in Rule 78(d) for conducting hearings deprives a circuit court of jurisdiction); Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000) (addressing issues of 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. ___ necessary and indispensable parties and venue arising from a primary-election-eligibility contest); Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000) (addressing issue of standing arising from an eligibility contest in a primary election). | 2 | 2 |
Shipp v. Franklingreen2 sentences2013See Shipp v. Franklin, 370 Ark. 262 , 258 S.W.3d 744 (2007). [[Image here]] That being said, we have recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine, one of which involves issues that are capable of repetition, yet evade review. 2013See Shipp v. Franklin, 370 Ark. 262 , 258 S.W.3d 744 (2007). [[Image here]] That being said, we have recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine, one of which involves issues that are capable of repetition, yet evade review. | 2 | 2 |
Wright v. Keffergreen2 sentences2001However, this court has recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine "for cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review, being cases in which the justiciable controversy will necessarily expire or terminate prior to adjudication" Cook v. State, 333 Ark. 22 , 968 S.W.2d 589 (1998) (citing Wright v. Keffer, 319 Ark. 201 , 890 S.W.2d 271 (1995)). 2001However, this court has recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine "for cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review, being cases in which the justiciable controversy will necessarily expire or terminate prior to adjudication" Cook v. State, 333 Ark. 22 , 968 S.W.2d 589 (1998) (citing Wright v. Keffer, 319 Ark. 201 , 890 S.W.2d 271 (1995)). | 1 | 7 |
Cotten v. Fooksgreen2 sentences2012Cotten v. Fooks, 346 Ark. 130 , 55 S.W.3d 290 (2001). 2012Cotten v. Fooks, 346 Ark. 130 , 55 S.W.3d 290 (2001). | 1 | 6 |
Dickinson v. Stategreen2 sentences2017Hollimon, supra; see also Dickinson v. State, 372 Ark. 62 , 270 S.W.3d 863 (2008). 2017Hollimon, supra; see also Dickinson v. State, 372 Ark. 62 , 270 S.W.3d 863 (2008). | 1 | 2 |
Terry v. Whitegreen2 sentences2016See Terry v. White, 374 Ark. 387 , 288 S.W.3d 199 (2008). 2016See Terry v. White, 374 Ark. 387 , 288 S.W.3d 199 (2008). | 1 | 2 |
Deer/Mt. Judea School District v. Kimbrellgreen2 sentences2014Id., ___ S.W.3d at ___. 2014Id., ___ S.W.3d at ___. | 1 | 2 |
Arkansas Intercollegiate Conference v. Parnhamgreen2 sentences1995In addition to those cases that evade review, this court has recognized other exceptions to the mootness doctrine, see Arkansas Intercollegiate Conference v. Parnham, 309 Ark. 170 , 828 S.W.2d 828 (1992) (and cases cited therein), but none of those exceptions require us to decide the present case. 1995In addition to those cases that evade review, this court has recognized other exceptions to the mootness doctrine, see Arkansas Intercollegiate Conference v. Parnham, 309 Ark. 170 , 828 S.W.2d 828 (1992) (and cases cited therein), but none of those exceptions require us to decide the present case. | 1 | 2 |
James Toland and First Arkansas Bail Bonds, Inc. v. Mike Robinson, in His Official Capacity as District Judge of Saline County, Benton [Department]; And Stephanie Casady, in Her Official Capacity as District Judge of Saline County, Bryant [Department]green1 sentence2023See Trujillo, 2016 Ark. 49, at 8 , S.W.3d at 806 (holding Trujilo’s claim that a $300,000 bail was excessive was moot because he pled guilty and an exception to mootness did not apply); see also Toland, 2019 Ark. 368, 9-10 , 590 S.W.3d 146 , 152 (holding Toland’s bail claim was moot because he did not object to the bond at his hearing and he had posted bond before he filed his complaint, thus an exception to mootness did not apply). | 1 | 1 |
| City of Clinton v. Southern Paramedic Services, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wilson v. Walthergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Chamberlin v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurancegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Whitegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Monticello Healthcare Center, LLC v. Goodmangreen | 1 | 1 |
| STATE GAME & FISH COM'N v. Sledgegreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Allison v. Lee County Election Commission
green
2 sentences2020Id. 2007Id. | 6 | 2006–2020 |
Poland v. Poland
green
2 sentences2017The supreme court noted in that case that a person convicted of a misdemeanor has the right to appeal pursuant 6 Cite as 2017 Ark. 2017The majority holds that our precedent in Gee must be revised to incorporate a third exception to the mootness doctrine, the theory of “collateral legal consequences.” Such an Cite as 2017 Ark. | 3 | 2017–2017 |
Quinn v. Webb Wheel Products
green
2 sentences2016See Forrest Constr., Inc. v. Milam, supra; Quinn v. Webb Wheel Products, 334 Ark. 573 , 976 S.W.2d 386 (1998); Dillon v. Twin City Bank, supra. Our courts have recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) issues that are capable of repetition, yet evade review; and (2) issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. 2016See Forrest Constr., Inc. v. Milam, supra; Quinn v. Webb Wheel Products, 334 Ark. 573 , 976 S.W.2d 386 (1998); Dillon v. Twin City Bank, supra. Our courts have recognized two exceptions to the mootness doctrine: (1) issues that are capable of repetition, yet evade review; and (2) issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. | 3 | 2001–2016 |
Wilson v. Pulaski Ass'n of Classroom Teachers
green
2 sentences2003Id. 1998Wilson v. Pulaski Ass’n of Classroom Teachers, 330 Ark. 298 , 954 S.W.2d 221 (1997); Wright v. Keffer, 319 Ark. 201 , 890 S.W.2d 271 (1995). | 3 | 1998–2003 |
Robinson v. Arkansas State Game & Fish Commission
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Quinn v. Webb Wheel Products, supra; Robinson v. Arkansas State Game & Fish Comm’n, 263 Ark. 462 , 565 S.W.2d 433 (1978) (authority of courts to enter temporary orders despite expiration of the particular orders being litigated); Cummings v. Washington County Election Comm’n, 291 Ark. 354 , 724 S.W.2d 486 (1987) (addressing question of candidate’s eligibility to run for office despite completion of election cycle).The other mootness exception concerns issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. 2016See, e.g., Quinn v. Webb Wheel Products, supra; Robinson v. Arkansas State Game & Fish Comm’n, 263 Ark. 462 , 565 S.W.2d 433 (1978) (authority of courts to enter temporary orders despite expiration of the particular orders being litigated); Cummings v. Washington County Election Comm’n, 291 Ark. 354 , 724 S.W.2d 486 (1987) (addressing question of candidate’s eligibility to run for office despite completion of election cycle).The other mootness exception concerns issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. | 2 | 2001–2016 |
Cummings v. Washington County Election Commission
green
2 sentences2016See, e.g., Quinn v. Webb Wheel Products, supra; Robinson v. Arkansas State Game & Fish Comm’n, 263 Ark. 462 , 565 S.W.2d 433 (1978) (authority of courts to enter temporary orders despite expiration of the particular orders being litigated); Cummings v. Washington County Election Comm’n, 291 Ark. 354 , 724 S.W.2d 486 (1987) (addressing question of candidate’s eligibility to run for office despite completion of election cycle).The other mootness exception concerns issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. 2016See, e.g., Quinn v. Webb Wheel Products, supra; Robinson v. Arkansas State Game & Fish Comm’n, 263 Ark. 462 , 565 S.W.2d 433 (1978) (authority of courts to enter temporary orders despite expiration of the particular orders being litigated); Cummings v. Washington County Election Comm’n, 291 Ark. 354 , 724 S.W.2d 486 (1987) (addressing question of candidate’s eligibility to run for office despite completion of election cycle).The other mootness exception concerns issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, would prevent future litigation. | 2 | 2001–2016 |
Valley v. Bogard
green
2 sentences2014See Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. 334 , 980 S.W.2d 270 (1998) (addressing issue of whether a violation of the two-to-seven day provision in Rule 78(d) for conducting hearings deprives a circuit court of jurisdiction); Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000) (addressing issues of 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. ___ necessary and indispensable parties and venue arising from a primary-election-eligibility contest); Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000) (addressing issue of standing arising from an eligibility contest in a primary election). 2014See Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. 334 , 980 S.W.2d 270 (1998) (addressing issue of whether a violation of the two-to-seven day provision in Rule 78(d) for conducting hearings deprives a circuit court of jurisdiction); Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000) (addressing issues of 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. ___ necessary and indispensable parties and venue arising from a primary-election-eligibility contest); Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000) (addressing issue of standing arising from an eligibility contest in a primary election). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Jacobs v. Yates
green
2 sentences2014See Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. 334 , 980 S.W.2d 270 (1998) (addressing issue of whether a violation of the two-to-seven day provision in Rule 78(d) for conducting hearings deprives a circuit court of jurisdiction); Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000) (addressing issues of 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. ___ necessary and indispensable parties and venue arising from a primary-election-eligibility contest); Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000) (addressing issue of standing arising from an eligibility contest in a primary election). 2014See Jenkins v. Bogard, 335 Ark. 334 , 980 S.W.2d 270 (1998) (addressing issue of whether a violation of the two-to-seven day provision in Rule 78(d) for conducting hearings deprives a circuit court of jurisdiction); Valley v. Bogard, 342 Ark. 336 , 28 S.W.3d 269 (2000) (addressing issues of 10 Cite as 2014 Ark. ___ necessary and indispensable parties and venue arising from a primary-election-eligibility contest); Jacobs v. Yates, 342 Ark. 243 , 27 S.W.3d 734 (2000) (addressing issue of standing arising from an eligibility contest in a primary election). | 2 | 2014–2014 |
Ball v. Phillips County Election Commission
green
2 sentences2008Id. 2007Id. | 2 | 2007–2008 |
Cook v. State
neutral
2 sentences2001However, this court has recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine "for cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review, being cases in which the justiciable controversy will necessarily expire or terminate prior to adjudication" Cook v. State, 333 Ark. 22 , 968 S.W.2d 589 (1998) (citing Wright v. Keffer, 319 Ark. 201 , 890 S.W.2d 271 (1995)). 2001However, this court has recognized an exception to the mootness doctrine "for cases that are capable of repetition yet evading review, being cases in which the justiciable controversy will necessarily expire or terminate prior to adjudication" Cook v. State, 333 Ark. 22 , 968 S.W.2d 589 (1998) (citing Wright v. Keffer, 319 Ark. 201 , 890 S.W.2d 271 (1995)). | 2 | 2001–2006 |
Duhon v. Gravett
green
2 sentences1992There are exceptions to the doctrine of mootness, see Duhon v. Gravett, 302 Ark. 358 , 790 S.W.2d 155 (1990) and Nathaniel v. Forrest City School Dist. 1992There are exceptions to the doctrine of mootness, see Duhon v. Gravett, 302 Ark. 358 , 790 S.W.2d 155 (1990) and Nathaniel v. Forrest City School Dist. | 2 | 1992–1997 |
Ricky Lee Burnett v. State of Arkansas
green
2 sentences2026Burnett v. State, 2023 Ark. 162 , 677 S.W.3d 191 . 2026Burnett v. State, 2023 Ark. 162 , 677 S.W.3d 191 . | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Rocky McGahey v. State of Arkansas
green
1 sentence2026App. 30 , 683 S.W.3d 211 , and we decline to apply this exception to the mootness doctrine.5 Affirmed. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Marty Boling v. Lona McCastlain, Chairwoman, Arkansas Post-Prison Transfer Board
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
(In the Matter of the Guardianship of Grace Yvonne Fenner) Grace Yvonne Fenner v. Christopher Michael Fenner
green
1 sentence2026Id. | 1 | 2026–2026 |
Clayton Franklin as Adminstrator for the Estate of Cody J. Franklin v. City of Ozark, Arkansas; Nathan Griffith; And Joseph Griffith
neutral
1 sentence2025In Poland v. Poland, we recognized a mootness exception for civil appeals where findings in a judgment might 3 Franklin v. City of Ozark, 2025 Ark. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
| Convent Corporation v. City of North Little Rock, Arkansas, a Municipal Corporation; Joe Smith, Mayor, Individually and Inhis Official Capacity; City Council Members Debi Ross, Beth White, Linda Robinson, Maurice Taylor, Steve Baxter, Bruce Foutch, Murry Witcher, and Charlie Hight, Each Individually and in His or Her Official Capacity; Tom Wadley, Director, Code Enforcement Division, Individually and in His Official Capacity; And Felicia McHenry, Code Enforcement Officer, Individually and in Her Official Capacity green | 1 | 2022–2022 |
| Johnathan Pinney v. State of Arkansas green | 1 | 2021–2021 |
| Watts v. Searcy County Board of Elections neutral | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Hyman v. Sadler green | 1 | 2020–2020 |
| Box v. J.B. Hunt Transport, Inc. green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| Keep Our Dollars in Independence County v. Mitchell green | 1 | 2018–2018 |
| McPeak v. State neutral | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Putman v. Kennedy green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Hengel v. City of Pine Bluff green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Arkansas State Board of Election Commissioners v. Pulaski County Election Commission green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Thompson v. State green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Ark. St. Bd. of Elec. Comm'rs v. PCEC green | 1 | 2017–2017 |
| Swindle v. State green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Gray v. Mitchell green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Whaley v. Beckham green | 1 | 2016–2016 |
| Gray v. Thomas-Barnes green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Bd. of Dir. of the City of Hot Springs v. Pritchett green | 1 | 2015–2015 |
| Bailey v. Martin green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| Chandler v. Martin green | 1 | 2014–2014 |
| WARREN WHOLESALE CO. v. McLane Co., Inc. green | 1 | 2013–2013 |
| Campbell v. State green | 1 | 2006–2006 |
| Paslay v. Arkansas Department of Human Services neutral | 1 | 2002–2002 |
| McCuen v. McGee neutral | 1 | 1998–1998 |
| Richie Ex Rel. Richie v. Board of Education green | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.