Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. 161 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-25-36 Opinion Delivered: October 29, 2026 BERNICE RUTLAND APPELLANT V. TODD C. STEWART, DISSENTING OPINION FROM THE INDIVIDUALLY; TODD C. DENIAL OF PETITION FOR STEWART, D.D.S., P.A.; AND ROCK REVIEW. DENTAL ARKANSAS, PLLC, D/B/A HELENA FAMILY DENTAL APPELLEE NICHOLAS J. BRONNI, Associate Justice Citing its own precedent, the court of appeals departs from ours. Compare Rutland v. Stewart, 2026 Ark. App. 218, at 6 (citing Jackson-Rice v. Rice, 2026 Ark. App. 84, at 3) (dismissing an appeal under Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure—Civil 3(e) without analyzing prejudice), with Mann v. Pierce, 2016 Ark. 418, at 4, 505 S.W.3d 150, 153 (requiring a prejudice analysis before dismissal under Rule 3(e)). As Judge Wendy Wood correctly points out, this court’s precedent allows less than perfect compliance with Ark. R. App. P.—Civil 3(e), unless the appellee can show prejudice from the appellant’s failure to strictly comply with the rule. Rutland, 2026 Ark. App. 218, at 7 (Wood, J., concurring) (citing Rogers v. Tudor Ins. Co., 325 Ark. 226, 231, 925 S.W.2d 395, 397). It’s a fundamental principle of law that the court of appeals cannot overrule or ignore our precedent. But by denying this petition, the majority allows just that. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. Special Justice CORY COX joins.