Roeder v. United States, CV–13–955.
Decision Date | 07 November 2013 |
Docket Number | No. CV–13–955.,CV–13–955. |
Citation | 430 S.W.3d 667,2013 Ark. 451 |
Parties | Theresa ROEDER, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Esther Kay Roeder, Deceased, and on Behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Esther Kay Roeder; Tara Roeder, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Bruce Wayne Roeder, and on behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Bruce Wayne Roeder; and Tara Roeder, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Deborah Busby Roeder, and on behalf of the Wrongful Death Beneficiaries of Deborah Busby Roeder, Petitioners v. UNITED STATES of America; James S. Watson, in his Individual and Official Capacity; Gloria Maples Chrismer, in her Individual and Official Capacity; Normal L. Wagoner, in his Individual and Official Capacity; James B. Kozik, in his Individual and Official Capacity; and John Does 1–5, in their Individual and Official Capacity, Respondents. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERERequest to Certify Question of Law from the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division.
In accordance with section 2(D)(3) of amendment 80 to the Arkansas Constitution and Rule 6–8 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals of the State of Arkansas, the Honorable Susan O. Hickey, of the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas, Hot Springs Division, filed a certification order with our clerk on October 1, 2013. The certifying court requests that we answer a question of law that may be determinative of a cause now pending in the certifying court, and it appears to the certifying court that there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Arkansas Supreme Court. After a review of the certifying court's analysis and explanation of the need for this court to answer the question of law presently pending in that court, we accept certification of the following question, as herein formulated:
Whether “malicious” conduct, under Ark.Code Ann. § 18–11–307(1), includes conduct in reckless disregard of the consequences from which malice may be inferred.
We note that the question of the correct statutory interpretation of “malicious” was raised in Carr v. Nance, 2010 Ark. 497, 370 S.W.3d 826, but this court declined to address it because the jury was never instructed on malice and returned a general verdict form. This per curiam order constitutes notice of our acceptance of the certification of the question of law. For purposes of the pending proceeding in this court, the following requirements are imposed:
A. Time limits will be calculated from the date of this per curiam order accepting certification. The plaintiffs in the underlying action, Theresa Roeder, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Esther Kay Roeder, deceased, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Esther Kay Roeder; Tara Roeder, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Bruce Wayne Roeder, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Bruce Wayne Roeder; and Tara Roeder, as the Administratrix of the Estate of Deborah Busby Roeder, and on behalf of the wrongful death beneficiaries of Deborah Busby Roeder, are designated the moving pa...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Roeder v. United States
...in accordance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6–8 (2013) and accepted by this court on November 7, 2013. See Roeder v. United States, 2013 Ark. 451, 430 S.W.3d 667. The certified question is: Whether “malicious” conduct, under Arkansas Code Annotated section 18–11–307(1) (Repl.2003), inclu......
- Moore v. Circuit Court of Phillips Cnty.