Arkansas State Bd. of Educ. v. Magnolia School Dist. No. 14 of Columbia County
| Decision Date | 08 May 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-261,88-261 |
| Citation | 298 Ark. 603,769 S.W.2d 419 |
| Parties | , 53 Ed. Law Rep. 1014 ARKANSAS STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Appellants, v. MAGNOLIA SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 14 OF COLUMBIA COUNTY, Appellees. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Tim Humphries Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellants.
Rita S. Looney, Samuel A. Perroni, Little Rock, for appellees.
This is an appeal from an order certifying the case as a class action. Appeals of class action certifications, although interlocutory, are specifically permitted by Ark.R.App.P. 2(a)(9); Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Nesheim, 285 Ark. 253, 686 S.W.2d 777 (1985). The appellee, who is the Magnolia School District No. 14 of Columbia County, sought to have the appellants, who are the Arkansas State Board of Education and its members in their individual and representative capacities, enjoined from using state school money to satisfy obligations of the Little Rock and South Conway school districts resulting from federal court desegregation rulings. The Magnolia board was granted class action certification upon its claim to represent all other Arkansas school districts similarly situated. The state board appeals from the certification but raises only issues of sovereign immunity and standing to sue. We dismiss the appeal because these issues are not proper ones to be raised pursuant to Rule 2(a)(9).
The state board argued sovereign immunity and lack of standing in a motion for dismissal or summary judgment. It did not wait for the chancellor to rule on the motion but appealed her order certifying the class, arguing the positions they asserted in their motion. No issues of numerosity or common question of law or fact are even discussed.
The state board argues the chancellor erred in certifying the class because she lacked jurisdiction, given the claims of sovereign immunity and the Magnolia board's lack of standing as a member of the class. The only case cited in support of the argument that the chancellor lacked jurisdiction to certify the class because of a failure of standing is O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 94 S.Ct. 669, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974), which did not so hold but noted in obiter dicta that the members of the purported class had not shown the requisite "case or controversey" for federal jurisdiction. There had not even been a class certification proceeding in the U.S. district court. Class action certifications are not appealable under the federal rule, and the citation is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chubb Lloyds Ins. Co. v. Miller County Circuit Court, Third Div.
...that position,” this court refused to address the question, holding as follows: As we stated in Arkansas State Bd. of Educ. v. Magnolia Sch. Dist. No. 14, 298 Ark. 603, 769 S.W.2d 419 (1989), we are unaware of any authority in this Court holding that lack of standing deprives a court of jur......
-
Millett v. Atlantic Richfield Co.
...distinguishing Reader on ground that Reader involved denial of class certification)); Arkansas State Bd. of Educ. v. Magnolia Sch. Dist. No. 14 of Columbia County, 298 Ark. 603, 769 S.W.2d 419, 419 (1989) (allowing appeal from class certification pursuant to appellate rule); Aetna Cas. & Su......
-
Lenders Title Co. v. Chandler
...See also Mega Life, 330 Ark. 261, 954 S.W.2d 898. If this law were not clear enough, in Arkansas State Bd. of Educ. v. Magnolia Sch. Dist. No. 14, 298 Ark. 603, 605, 769 S.W.2d 419, 420 (1989), this court stated: "It was not our intention in changing Rule 2(a) to allow any issue to be prese......
-
Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Carpenter Farms Med. Grp., LLC
...other than whether the circuit court erred ... on the issue of sovereign immunity."); see also Ark. St. Bd. of Ed. v. Magnolia Sch. Dist. , 298 Ark. 603, 604, 769 S.W.2d 419, 420 (1989) (holding party cannot challenge standing in an interlocutory appeal regarding class certification); Searc......