Smith v. Wright (Per Curiam)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2015 Ark. 38 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-14-427 February 5, 2015 NATHANIEL SMITH, M.D., ET AL. APPELLANTS Opinion Delivered 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. APPELLEES RESPONSES ORDERED. 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. 38 argument 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
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.
