State v. First Serv. Bank of Greenbrier (Majority)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The State appealed from a circuit court order dismissing its in rem forfeiture petition against real property located in Little Rock. The circuit court dismissed the petition based upon a finding that Ark. Code Ann. 5-42-204(c)(3) does not permit the State to pursue in rem forfeiture. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the case was moot because a settlement had been reached, and neither of the exceptions to the mootness doctrine applied in this case. Because the Court does not issue advisory opinions, the Court dismissed the appeal as moot.

Download PDF
Cite as 2013 Ark. 101 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. 12-581 STATE OF ARKANSAS Opinion Delivered March 7, 2013 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 60CV-11-6168] V. FIRST SERVICE BANK OF GREENBRIER; REAL PROPERTY AT 1 LOMBARDY LANE; CANTRELL HOLDINGS, LLC; LANDAN K. MITCHELL; JOHN SKYLAR TAPP APPELLEES HONORABLE JAY MOODY, JUDGE APPEAL DISMISSED AS MOOT. JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Justice The State of Arkansas appeals from a Pulaski County Circuit Court order dismissing its in rem forfeiture petition against real property located at 1 Lombardy Lane in Little Rock. On appeal, the State argues that the circuit court erred in dismissing its forfeiture petition based upon a finding that Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-42-204(c)(3) (Repl. 2006) does not permit the State to pursue in rem forfeiture. We dismiss this appeal because the case is moot. When the State filed its main brief, it noted that disposition of the proceeds that the State had sought in its forfeiture petition was pending. In its reply brief, the State confirmed that a settlement had been reached and that the case was now moot. Although the State has asked us to answer the question on appeal, we decline to do so. As a general rule, appellate courts of this state will not review moot issues. Bank of Cite as 2013 Ark. 101 Am., N.A. v. Brown, 2011 Ark. 446. A case becomes moot when any judgment rendered would have no practical legal effect upon a then-existing legal controversy. City of Pine Bluff v. Jones, 370 Ark. 173, 258 S.W.3d 361 (2007). While we recognize two exceptions to the mootness doctrine (1) issues that are capable of repetition, yet evading review and (2) issues that raise considerations of substantial public interest which, if addressed, might prevent future litigation, Brown, supra, we hold that neither of these grounds apply in this case. Accordingly, any opinion handed down by this court in this matter would simply be an advisory opinion, which we will not issue. City of Clinton v. S. Paramedic Servs., Inc., 2012 Ark. 88, 387 S.W.3d 137. Appeal dismissed as moot. Dustin McDaniel, Att y Gen., by: David R. Raupp, Sr. Ass t Att y Gen., for appellant. Tapp Law Offices, by: J. Sky Tapp, for appellees. 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.