Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court denied the Arkansas Department of Human Services' petition for a writ of prohibition concerning a circuit court order requiring DHS to perform an out-of-state home study in Kansas. The court held that no act remained to prohibit because the circuit court had rescinded the order after the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children home study was completed. The court therefore did not reach DHS's arguments regarding the circuit court's authority or enforcement of the compact.
Holdings
- A writ of prohibition will not issue when the trial court has already withdrawn the challenged order and there is no current act to prohibit.
- A trial court has inherent authority, independent of any rule or statute, to modify or set aside a judgment during the term in which it was entered, now understood as within ninety days under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 60(a).
Questions Presented
- Whether the Supreme Court should issue a writ of prohibition concerning the circuit court's order requiring DHS to perform a home study in Kansas after the circuit court withdrew that order.
- Whether a trial court has inherent authority to modify or set aside an order within ninety days of its filing.
Disposition
writ_denied
Cases Cited (8)
- Steward v. Wurtz, 327 Ark. 292, 938 S.W.2d 837 (1997)(followed)
- Young v. Young, 316 Ark. 456, 872 S.W.2d 856 (1994)(followed)
- Massengale v. Johnson, 269 Ark. 269, 599 S.W.2d 743 (1980)(followed)
- Cowan v. Patrick, 247 Ark. 886, 448 S.W.2d 336 (1969)(followed)
- Wright v. Ford, 216 Ark. 55, 224 S.W.2d 50 (1949)(followed)
- Underwood v. Sledge, 27 Ark. 295 (1871)(followed)
- Parker v. Sebourn, 351 Ark. 453, 456, 95 S.W.3d 762, 765 (2003)(followed)
- J.W. Reynolds Lumber Co. v. Smackover State Bank, 310 Ark. 342, 352, 836 S.W.2d 853, 858 (1992)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…