Arkansas Department of Human Services and John M. Selig

Summary

Justice Danielson dissented, concluding that the appeal should be dismissed without prejudice because the circuit court never expressly ruled on the asserted sovereign-immunity and statutory-immunity defenses. He reasoned that an express immunity ruling was necessary to create appellate jurisdiction over an interlocutory appeal. The dissent also rejected the majority's attempt to distinguish the controlling precedent concerning the need for such a ruling.