Legal Opinion · Dissent

Shields v. QHG of Springdale, Inc.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 26, 2009No. 08-744Published

1Dissent

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Justice.

| Respectfully, I dissent. Our case law makes clear, and the majority acknowledges, that once a pro se motion is filed by a represented party, a circuit court should exercise its discretion to either (1) strike the pro se motion on the ground that the defendant is represented by counsel and thus was not entitled to proceed pro se, or (2) otherwise make an appropriate ruling on the motion. See Urquhart v. Davis, 342 Ark. 9, 25 S.W.3d 411 (2000); Monts v. Lessenberry, 305 Ark. 202, 806 S.W.2d 379 (1991). In either event, “disposition should be prompt and made a matter…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Monts v. LessenberrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
  2. Urquhart v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
  3. Urquhart v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API