{ "id": 1655535, "name": "James McGANN v. PINE BLUFF POLICE DEPARTMENT", "name_abbreviation": "McGann v. Pine Bluff Police Department", "decision_date": "1998-09-24", "docket_number": "97-899", "first_page": "352", "last_page": "356", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "334 Ark. 352" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "974 S.W.2d 462" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "313 Ark. 412", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1914590 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "where staff memorandum did not constitute final order but was merely a step in the overall administrative process, the trial court's dismissal of the appeal from the memorandum was affirmed" }, { "parenthetical": "where staff memorandum did not constitute final order but was merely a step in the overall administrative process, the trial court's dismissal of the appeal from the memorandum was affirmed" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/313/0412-01" ] }, { "cite": "333 Ark. 343", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 703806 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/333/0343-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a714-51-212", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "318 Ark. 640", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1455934 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/318/0640-01" ] }, { "cite": "52 Ark. App. 66", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6137467 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/52/0066-01" ] }, { "cite": "264 Ark. 1", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1669014 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1978, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/264/0001-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 25-15-210", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1996, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(b)(1) and (2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "282 Ark. 213", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1740762 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/282/0213-01" ] }, { "cite": "297 Ark. 472", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1891425 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/297/0472-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 Ark. 83", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1914599 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/313/0083-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-51-308", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 485, "char_count": 7504, "ocr_confidence": 0.765, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.007085243594847e-07, "percentile": 0.7437676868419741 }, "sha256": "db43410dbc4cd8ac5dfdcefb7ee31d1b0f30942d827b0f59ca36866b22082b2f", "simhash": "1:e0c1dea9476f3234", "word_count": 1201 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:44:18.632081+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Corbin, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "James McGANN v. PINE BLUFF POLICE DEPARTMENT" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nAppellant James - McGann was employed by the Pine Bluff Police Department in 1985, but in June of 1995, the Department\u2019s chief of police suspended McGann for twenty working days for conduct unbecoming an officer. McGann appealed to the Pine Bluff Civil Service Commission, which reduced McGann\u2019s suspension period to fifteen days. Based on evidence that surfaced during litigation concerning the incident that led to McGann\u2019s suspension, the Pine Bluff city attorney suggested that McGann was too great a liability and should be terminated. The chief of police terminated McGann on January 6, 1997. McGann requested that the Commission review his discharge in accordance with Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 14-51-308 (Repl. 1998). Following a hearing and its review of the matter on February 10, 1997, the Commission issued its findings in an order on March 7, 1997, which in relevant part reads as follows:\nAlthough termination of [McGann\u2019s] employment was not wrongful and was based on legitimate concerns involving Officer McGann\u2019s potential contribution to economic liability to the City of Pine Bluff, it is believed that additional steps can be taken to better evaluate the risk McGann poses.\n[McGann] should be thoroughly evaluated by a psychologist approved by the [Commission] and . . . should satisfactorily complete short term training in options for handling situations in which the subject is uncooperative and/or aggressive, said training to be first approved by the [Commission].\n... If the psychological examination concludes that [McGann] meets the psychological standards for law enforcement officers, and ... if [McGann] successfully completes the short term training described above, he shall be reinstated.\nDisagreeing with the Commission\u2019s decision, the Department filed a timely appeal to the circuit court on March 10, 1997. One week later, McGann appeared before the Southeast Arkansas Behavioral Healthcare System (Southeast) for an evaluation and met with a \u201cpsychological examiner.\u201d His evaluation resulted in Southeast\u2019s March 17, 1997 report that contraindicated McGann\u2019s certification and reinstatement as a police officer. McGann received a letter dated April 7, 1997, indicating that Southeast had not recommended him. On April 9, 1997, the Department dismissed its appeal of the Commission\u2019s decision. McGann, having learned of the Department\u2019s dismissal, filed his own notice of appeal to the circuit court on April 14, 1997. The Department requested the circuit court to dismiss McGann\u2019s appeal because his notice of appeal was filed beyond the thirty-day appeal deadline prescribed by \u00a7 14-51-308(e)(1)(B)(i). The circuit court granted the Department\u2019s motion to dismiss, and McGann appealed the trial court\u2019s dismissal order to the court of appeals. The court of appeals certified that appeal to this court in accordance with \u00a714-51-308(e)(2) (A).\nMcGann presents one point for reversal, arguing that the circuit court erred in ruling he filed an untimely appeal. McGann concedes the original deadline for his appeal was April 9, 1997, or thirty days after the Commission\u2019s March 7, 1997 decision. However, citing Pope County v. Friday, Eldredge & Clark, 313 Ark. 83, 852 S.W.2d 114 (1993), McGann compares the thirty-day appeal deadline to a limitation statute and suggests that the appeal period had been tolled by the Department\u2019s filing of its notice of appeal. Thus, the appeal time did not commence running again, according to McGann, until the Department dismissed its appeal. He also cites another case, Stroud v. Ryan, 297 Ark. 472, 763 S.W.2d 76 (1989), involving a limitation-period issue and submits that because he suffered no actual injury under the Commission\u2019s order, his time for appeal did not take effect until April 7th \u2014 the date he first learned that Southeast declined to recommend McGann\u2019s retention.\nWe find no merit in McGann\u2019s novel arguments, but we need not reach them because the Commission\u2019s March 7 order was not final, and therefore, not appealable. The want of a final order is a matter that we raise ourselves, and under Rule 2(a)(1), Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure \u2014 Civil, we are limited to a review of a final judgment, decree, or order to avoid piecemeal litigation. See also Fratesi v. Bond, 282 Ark. 213, 666 S.W.2d 712 (1984). Under \u00a7 14-51-308(e)(1)(A), McGann had a right to appeal any decision of the Commission to the circuit court, but like in every case of adjudication by an agency or commission, there still must be a final order. The final decision or order must be in writing or stated in the record, and that final decision must include findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 25-15\u2014210(b)(1) and (2) (Repl. 1996); Sykes, Printing Adm\u2019r v. General Publishing Co., 264 Ark. 1, 568 S.W.2d 33 (1978); Earp v. Benton Fire Dep\u2019t, 52 Ark. App. 66, 914 S.W.2d 781 (1996); see also Ark. Code \u00a7\u00a7 14-51-308(e)(1)(B)(ii); and 14-51-308(e)(2)(A), (B), and (f). This court has defined \u201cfinal order\u201d as one that dismisses the parties, discharges them from the action, or concludes their rights to the subject matter in controversy. See General Motors Acceptance Corp. v. Eubanks, 318 Ark. 640, 887 S.W.2d 292 (1994).\nHere, the Commission\u2019s decision left several issues unresolved. For example, the Commission\u2019s order initially ruled that McGann was not wrongfully discharged, but it then ordered McGann to be reinstated only if, after a psychological examination, he met the minimum standard for law enforcement officers and he completed a short-term training program. McGann concedes the Commission never made a finding concerning these two preconditions, nor does the abstract of record show that McGann or the Department asked the Commission to make any findings or enter an order touching on these preconditions. Because a final order was not entered which resolved the Commission\u2019s preconditions set forth in its March 7 order, we are unable to decide this case on appeal.\nIn oral argument, the Department suggested the Commission\u2019s order was final at least to the extent that the Commission agreed the chief of police had properly discharged McGann. It submits the Commission simply had no authority to provide conditions under which McGann would be reinstated. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a714-51-212 (Repl. 1998). The Department, however, never raised that issue below, and while it initially appealed the Commission\u2019s order, it chose not to challenge the Commission\u2019s authority to enter such preconditions by dismissing its appeal. It cannot now raise that issue in this appeal. See Malone v. Texarkana Pub. Schs., 333 Ark. 343, 969 S.W.2d 644 (1998).\nTherefore, we affirm the circuit court\u2019s decision dismissing McGann\u2019s appeal, but we do so on the basis that the order McGann appealed from was not final. See Gurley v. Mathis, 313 Ark. 412, 856 S.W.2d 616 (1993) (where staff memorandum did not constitute final order but was merely a step in the overall administrative process, the trial court\u2019s dismissal of the appeal from the memorandum was affirmed). However, we modify the circuit court\u2019s decision dismissing McGann\u2019s appeal to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice to file an appeal once the Commission\u2019s final order is entered.\nAffirmed as modified.\nCorbin, J., not participating.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Edward G. Adcock, for appellant.", "John W. Cone, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "James McGANN v. PINE BLUFF POLICE DEPARTMENT\n97-899\n974 S.W.2d 462\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 24, 1998\nEdward G. Adcock, for appellant.\nJohn W. Cone, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0352-01", "first_page_order": 378, "last_page_order": 382 }