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

Cite as 2015 Ark. 38SUPREME 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. 38argument 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