Harvest Rice v. Dir.

2017 Ark. App. 549
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedOctober 25, 2017
DocketE-17-229
StatusPublished

This text of 2017 Ark. App. 549 (Harvest Rice v. Dir.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Harvest Rice v. Dir., 2017 Ark. App. 549 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 549

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. E-17-229

Opinion Delivered: October 25, 2017 HARVEST RICE, INC. APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS V. BOARD OF REVIEW [NO. 2017-BR-00492] DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES, AND PATRICIA OSWALD APPELLEES APPEAL DISMISSED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

Appellant Harvest Rice, Inc. (Harvest Rice) appeals from the Arkansas Board of

Review’s May 8, 2017 decision, reversing the Appeal Tribunal and finding that the claimant,

Patricia Oswald, was entitled to benefits because she was discharged from last work for

reasons other than misconduct. We dismiss due to a lack of jurisdiction.

Harvest Rice filed its petition for appeal with this court on June 9, 2017. The notice

of appeal was not signed by an attorney but instead was signed by Harvest Rice’s Co-

President and CEO, Patrick Casserly.

It is well-settled law that corporations must be represented by licensed attorneys.

Bank of Fayetteville NA v. Dir., 2016 Ark. App. 96. Furthermore, our supreme court has

held that when a party not licensed to practice law in this state attempts to represent the

interests of others by submitting himself or herself to the jurisdiction of a court, those

actions, such as the filing of pleadings, are rendered a nullity. Id. Cite as 2017 Ark. App. 549

Here, Casserly indicated on the Petition for Review that Harvest Rice was not

represented by an attorney, and he signed the petition. Because Casserly is not an attorney,

he may not represent Harvest Rice in this case. Id. Our case law makes it clear that invoking

the process of a court of law constitutes the practice of law. Steel v. Dir., 2016 Ark. App.

377. Because Casserly was practicing law when he signed the petition, the petition is null

and void. Id. As a result, we lack jurisdiction and dismiss this appeal.

Appeal Dismissed.

KLAPPENBACH and BROWN, JJ., agree.

No briefs filed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Bank of Fayetteville v. Dir.
2016 Ark. App. 96 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2016)
Nucor Steel. v. Dir.
2016 Ark. App. 377 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 Ark. App. 549, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harvest-rice-v-dir-arkctapp-2017.