{ "id": 3508040, "name": "GRAND RIVER ENTERPRISES SIX NATIONS, LTD., and Advanced Marketing/Midsouth, Inc. v. Mike BEEBE, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Ltd. v. Beebe", "decision_date": "2008-02-21", "docket_number": "07-552", "first_page": "384", "last_page": "387", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "372 Ark. 384" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "277 S.W.3d 171" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 26-57-260", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "96 F.3d 1377", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 7650275 ], "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/96/1377-01" ] }, { "cite": "743 F.2d 703", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 607819 ], "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/743/0703-01" ] }, { "cite": "822 F.2d 707", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1723431 ], "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/822/0707-01" ] }, { "cite": "456 F.3d 167", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.3d", "case_ids": [ 3350052, 3457245 ], "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f3d/456/0167-01", "/us-app-dc/372/0324-01" ] }, { "cite": "487 U.S. 1223", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1775108, 1774733, 1774959, 1774704, 1775120, 1775251, 1775219, 1774965, 1774839, 1775032, 1775163, 1775007 ], "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/487/1223-06", "/us/487/1223-07", "/us/487/1223-11", "/us/487/1223-08", "/us/487/1223-01", "/us/487/1223-03", "/us/487/1223-02", "/us/487/1223-04", "/us/487/1223-05", "/us/487/1223-09", "/us/487/1223-12", "/us/487/1223-10" ] }, { "cite": "827 F.2d 673", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.2d", "case_ids": [ 1754005 ], "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "675" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f2d/827/0673-01" ] }, { "cite": "320 Ark. 639", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1451286 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1995, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/320/0639-01" ] }, { "cite": "364 Ark. 100", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3032158 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "107" }, { "page": "598" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/364/0100-01" ] }, { "cite": "330 Ark. 722", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 298537 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "725" }, { "page": "689" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/330/0722-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 26-57-1301", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 450, "char_count": 6746, "ocr_confidence": 0.79, "pagerank": { "raw": 5.12982294956584e-08, "percentile": 0.3226357984577479 }, "sha256": "9c1e9cd2aa8fa0662abeff099e46254f84456327bf7093f7ab59b6128dae45a5", "simhash": "1:1d3d0c1a26bab351", "word_count": 1095 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:33:19.424661+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "GRAND RIVER ENTERPRISES SIX NATIONS, LTD., and Advanced Marketing/Midsouth, Inc. v. Mike BEEBE, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nCanadian tobacco manufacturer Grand River Enterprises Six Nations, Limited (Grand Pdver) and its American marketer appeal an order issued by the Pulaski County Circuit Court that dismissed its claim against the State. The State has filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that because the matter was consohdated with another pending action, the appeal is premature without a final judgment. When independently filed actions have been consohdated for trial, an order that disposes of one, but not ah of the claims or suits is not appealable unless the circuit court certifies the order as final under Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b).\nIn 1998, Arkansas and forty-five other states executed the \u201cMaster Settlement Agreement\u201d with the nation\u2019s largest cigarette manufacturers, requiring these manufacturers to make payments to the states based on per-cigarette sales. In return, the states released these manufacturers from certain past, present, and future claims. Tobacco manufacturers that are not part of the agreement, such as Grand River, are called Non-Participating Manufacturers, and the agreement encouraged the states to enact \u201cescrow statutes\u201d to require these non-participants to make deposits into an escrow account based on cigarette sales in that state.\nIn 2003, the Arkansas General Assembly passed Act 1073, Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7\u00a7 26-57-1301 etseq., which included a provision directing the Attorney General to develop and publish an Approved-for-Sale Tobacco Products Directory (Directory) of manufacturers authorized to conduct business in the state. Manufacturers that are not on the Directory cannot legally sell tobacco products within the state. Like all states participating in the Master Settlement Agreement, Arkansas enacted an escrow statute which allows the State to bring a civil action against any non-participating tobacco manufacturer that fails to deposit funds in escrow based on the previous year\u2019s sales, as well as remove it from the Directory.\nIn April 2006, the State notified Grand River of its pending removal from the Directory for failing to make the required deposit into an escrow account and for its failure to submit a mandatory certification form. In response, Grand River filed an action against the Arkansas Attorney General in his official capacity, arguing that removal from the Directory would violate its constitutional due process rights. The State then filed a complaint against Grand River based on that company\u2019s failure to make the escrow deposit based on its cigarette sales in the state during 2006 as required by law. Both the State and Grand River filed motions to dismiss the complaints against them. Following hearings on these motions, the Pulaski County Circuit Court filed orders on January 31, 2007, that (1) granted the State\u2019s motion to dismiss Grand River\u2019s claim in case CV-2006-5250; (2) denied Grand River\u2019s motion to dismiss the State\u2019s claim in case CV-2006-6047; and (3) consolidated State v. Grand River, CV-2006-6047, with Grand River v. Beebe, CV-2006-5250 for trial. However, Grand River chose to file this appeal of the circuit court\u2019s order in CV-2006-5250 that dismissed Grand River\u2019s claims against the State.\nAn appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court requires a final judgment or decree by the circuit court that disposes of the matter or otherwise puts the court directive into execution. Ark. R. App. P.-Civ. 2(a)(1), (2); see Petrus v. Nature Conservancy, 330 Ark. 722, 725, 957 S.W.2d 688, 689 (1997). In cases involving multiple claims or parties, Ark. R. Civ. P. 54(b)(1) provides that the circuit court:\nmay direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination, supported by specific factual findings, that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment.\nWhether an order dismissing a claim, which has been consolidated with another case, is final for purposes of appeal is a question of first impression for the court.\nWhere the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure are \u201csubstantially identical\u201d to the corresponding Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, we may consider federal interpretations. See City of Fort Smith v. Carter, 364 Ark. 100, 107, 216 S.W.3d 594, 598 (2005). In this case, Arkansas\u2019s Rule 54(b) is substantially identical to the Federal Rule 54(b). Although federal circuit courts are divided on Federal Rule 54(b)\u2019s application in consolidated cases, the fundamental purpose of Ark. R. Civ. P 54(b) is to avoid piecemeal appeals, see, e.g., Cortese v. Atlantic Richfield, 320 Ark. 639, 898 S.W.2d 467 (1995), and we are persuaded that the best approach is the bright-line rule used by the circuits that hold an appeal of a judgment disposing of fewer than all claims in a consolidated case requires Rule 54(b) certification. In Trinity Broadcasting Corp. v. Eller, the Tenth Circuit Court explained the rule as follows:\nOur adoption of any other rule would lead to the same piecemeal review [that] rule 54(b) seeks to prevent. . . [T]he district court is best able to assess the original purpose of consolidation and whether an interim appeal would frustrate that purpose.\n827 F.2d 673, 675 (10th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1223 (1988). See also Blackman v. District of Columbia, 456 F.3d 167 (D.C. Cir. 2006); Sandwiches, Inc. v. Wendy\u2019s Int\u2019l, Inc. 822 F.2d 707 (7th Cir. 1987); Huene v. United States, 743 F.2d 703 (9th Cir. 1984); Spraytex, Inc. v. DJS&T, 96 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir. 1996).\nWhile Grand River contends that the issues involved in the consolidated cases are \u201cdistinct,\u201d review of the pleadings shows that the issues are similar and intertwined. In fact, Grand River argued below in its motion to dismiss the State\u2019s action that the consolidated cases both concern \u201cthe alleged obligation of Grand River to make escrow payments to the State of Arkansas pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 26-57-260.\u201d Yet, Grand River\u2019s contention does illustrate the soundness of a bright-line Rule 54(b) certification requirement: it places the initial determination of whether an order in a consolidated case is final for the purposes of appeal on the person who is in the best position to make that decision \u2014 the trial judge.\nAccordingly, Grand River\u2019s appeal is dismissed without prejudice.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Conner & Winters, LLP, by: John R. Elrod and P. Joshua Wisley, for appellants.", "Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Eric B. Estes, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "GRAND RIVER ENTERPRISES SIX NATIONS, LTD., and Advanced Marketing/Midsouth, Inc. v. Mike BEEBE, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of the State of Arkansas\n07-552\n277 S.W.3d 171\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 21, 2008\nConner & Winters, LLP, by: John R. Elrod and P. Joshua Wisley, for appellants.\nDustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Eric B. Estes, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0384-01", "first_page_order": 408, "last_page_order": 411 }