You are on page 1of 2

SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS

No. cv-14-427

NATHANIEL SMITIf, M.D., ET AL.

opinion Delivered February

5,2A15

APPELLANTS

MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT
M. KENDALL WRIGHT AND JULIA E.
WRIGHT, INI)IVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR
CHILDREN, G.D.W. AND P.L.W., ET
AL.

RESPONSES ORDERED.
APPELLEES
PER CURIAM

On January 23, 2015, the Appellants filed a nrotion for oral argument. In their
n)otioll, the Appellants request that the court schedule

a

second oral argunrent and assert that

tlrrcc jtrstices were r-rot able to attend the first oral argur-r1ent on Novenrber 20,2014.1
Appellants lurther contend that "Fornrer AssociatcJustice CliffHootnran recusccl fronr this
casc and was replaced

has cnded,

and

by SpecialJustice Robert W. McCorkir-rdale. Justicc Hoofilan's ternl

. Associate Justice Rhonda K. Wood replaccd,|ustice Hoofilan on the

Corrrt. -f trstice Wood was not present at thc oral argunrent on Novenrbcr 20,2014."
Or-rJantrary 27 ,2015, the Appcllccs filcd thcir

re

sponse to the nrotion

'Chieflustice Hannah did not attend the oral argunrent

tbr [secondl oral

because he was :rttending an
out-of-state court conference, but counsel was infornred that hc rvould participatc and rvould
havc access to the oral-argunrent video. Jtrstices Wynne and Wood were not on the collrt
at that tinre.

.-i
17

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

SpecialJustice to hear'this specific case.' . . . SpecialJustice 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 thirry

days

ofthis order, ofany authoriry supporting their respective positions

regarding the justices r,vho preside over this case. See, e.g., Hill u. State,362 Ark.659,210

s.w.3d 123 (2005).
l\csponscs ordered.

2

cv-14-427