 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Campbell v. Entergy Arkansas6/30/2005
atories. Under these circumstances, we conclude that Mr. Campbell's inability to argue the effects of the jury's answers to the interrogatories was prejudicial.
As a final note, the opinion by the Arkansas Court of Appeals discloses that the court of appeals attempted to certify the case to our court because of a potential conflict between Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64- 122(d) and Rule 49 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which is substantially identical to Rule 49 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. Campbell v. Entergy Arkansas, Inc., ---Ark. App. ---, --- S.W.3d --- n. 1 (Dec. 15, 2004). Entergy subsequently addressed the issue in its supplemental brief and argued that the statute impermissibly infringes on this court's power under Amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution to prescribe the rules of pleadings, practice and procedure for all Arkansas courts. When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, the Attorney General of this state must be notified and is entitled to be heard. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-111- 106(b)(Repl. 1987); see also Landers v. Jameson, 355 Ark. 163, 132 S.W.3d 741 (2003). The purpose behind the notification to the Attorney General is to assure a "fully adversary and complete adjudication" of the constitutional issue. Arkansas Dept. Of Human Services v. Health, 307 Ark. 147, 149, 817 S.W.2d 885, 886 (1991). This has not been done in this case. We must therefore decline to address Entergy's constitutional challenge.
Reversed and remanded.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|