Cato v. Craighead County Circuit Court
2009 Ark. LEXIS 369, 322 S.W.3d 484, 2009 Ark. 334 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state statute that grants members of the organized militia immunity from service of civil process while performing military duties creates a substantive right, not a procedural rule. As a substantive right rooted in public policy, such a statute does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine by infringing upon the judiciary's exclusive authority to prescribe rules of procedure.
Facts:
- On July 15, 2005, Kevin Lawrence and Barrett Cato were both visitors at a residence owned by Debra Haggard.
- While at the residence, Cato fired a gun, and the bullet struck Lawrence in the abdomen.
- Cato was a member of the Arkansas National Guard.
- On November 19, 2007, Cato was on uniformed duty with the Arkansas National Guard at the Prescott Armory.
- While on duty at the armory, Cato was served with a summons and amended complaint for the civil lawsuit filed by Lawrence regarding the 2005 shooting.
Procedural Posture:
- Kevin Lawrence filed a complaint against Barrett Cato in the Craighead County Circuit Court (trial court), alleging negligence.
- The circuit court granted Lawrence an extension of time to serve Cato with the complaint.
- After being served while on military duty, Cato filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that service was improper under Arkansas statute § 12-62-403 and the court therefore lacked jurisdiction.
- The circuit court denied Cato's motion to dismiss, ruling that § 12-62-403 was unconstitutional because it violated the separation-of-powers doctrine.
- Cato petitioned the Arkansas Supreme Court (the state's highest court) for a writ of prohibition or, in the alternative, a writ of certiorari, to prevent the circuit court from exercising jurisdiction over him.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state statute that prohibits serving civil process on a member of the organized militia while on military duty violate the separation-of-powers doctrine by infringing upon the judiciary's exclusive authority to set rules of court procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Annabelle Clinton Imber
No, the statute does not violate the separation-of-powers doctrine because it creates a substantive right rather than a procedural rule. The court distinguishes between substantive law, which creates, defines, and regulates rights, and procedural law, which prescribes the steps for enforcing those rights. Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-62-403 is substantive because it grants a specific group—members of the organized militia—a right or privilege to be exempt from civil process under specific circumstances. The statute does not bypass court rules by setting up an alternative procedure; rather, it bars the application of the standard service procedure altogether for a protected class. Enacting such a right is a public policy decision, which falls within the purview of the legislature. Furthermore, other statutes toll the statute of limitations during military service, ensuring plaintiffs like Lawrence are not deprived of their ability to eventually bring a claim.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the distinction between substantive law and procedural rules, a critical concept in separation-of-powers jurisprudence, particularly under Arkansas's Amendment 80 which grants the state supreme court exclusive rulemaking authority. The case clarifies that the legislature retains the power to create substantive rights and immunities, even if they impact the timing or execution of litigation, so long as the statute does not prescribe a new court procedure. This precedent protects the legislature's ability to enact public policy, such as providing protections for military service members, without unconstitutionally encroaching on judicial power. It establishes that a law barring a procedure under certain conditions is not the same as a law creating an alternative procedure.
