Sherman v. Boeckmann (Per Curiam)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2016 Ark. 203 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Nos. CV-15-860 & CV-16-46 Opinion Delivered May 12, 2016 JEANNIE SHERMAN APPELLANT V. APPEAL FROM THE CROSS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 19-DR-12-81-4] RAYMOND BOECKMANN HONORABLE KATHLEEN BELL, JUDGE APPELLEE PETITION FOR REVIEW GRANTED; COURT OF APPEALS’ OPINION VACATED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION; PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR CERTIORARI DENIED; TEMPORARY STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION OR CERTIORARI DISSOLVED. PER CURIAM Appellant, Jeannie Sherman, appealed an order of the Cross County Circuit Court to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. On October 16, 2015, the court of appeals dismissed the appeal. Sherman v. Boeckmann, 2015 Ark. App. 566. On October 22, 2015, Sherman filed a petition for review with this court. On January 19, 2016, Sherman filed a petition for writ of prohibition or certiorari and an application for temporary stay pending resolution of petition for writ of prohibition or certiorari. Sherman v. Cross County Circuit Court, (CV-16-46) (companion case). On February 11, 2016, we granted Sherman’s application for temporary Cite as 2016 Ark. 203 stay pending resolution of petition for writ of prohibition or certiorari. Pursuant to our holding in Kelly v. Kelly, 2016 Ark. 72, 1, we grant Sherman’s petition for review, vacate the court of appeals’ opinion, and remand the appeal to the court of appeals for further consideration. Further, we deny Sherman’s petition for writ of prohibition or certiorari and dissolve the temporary stay pending resolution of petition for writ of prohibition or certiorari. Petition for review granted; court of appeals’ opinion vacated and remanded for further consideration; petition for writ of prohibition or certiorari denied; temporary stay pending resolution of petition for writ of prohibition or certiorari dissolved. 2 CV-15-860

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.