The Arkansas Supreme Court on Tuesday denied without comment a request for an expedited briefing schedule in an appeal in a lawsuit challenging the Arkansas Board of Education's Jan. 28 takeover of the Little Rock School District.
Document set
Little Rock School District state takeover
- State response to lawsuit challenging takeover of LRSD
- LRSD answer to lawsuit challenging state takeover
- Attorney general brief in support of motion to dismiss
- State's arguments to Supreme Court
- Suggs' settlement and severance agreement with LRSD
- Judge Griffen's ruling
- Hearing schedule
- Wendell Griffen's response
- Recusal letter
- Amended Little Rock School District lawsuit
- Little Rock School District lawsuit
- Letter to the Arkansas Department of Education
- A letter from Little Rock School Board member Joy Springer
- Little Rock School District Report
- Ross' response to Fisken's letter
- Fisken letter
- Arkansas Department of Education report
Attorneys for the plaintiffs -- three displaced Little Rock School Board members and two voters from the school district -- asked the high court Friday to shorten the timeline for lawyers to make their cases for and against dismissing the lawsuit.
Attorneys for the state defendants in the case are asking the Supreme Court to dismiss the lawsuit on the grounds that the Arkansas Constitution prohibits lawsuits against the state and its agencies.
Willard Proctor Jr., one of the attorneys for the plaintiffs, asked the high court to change the state's deadline for submitting its written arguments to this Friday and the deadline for the plaintiff's response to April 3.
As it stands, the state's written arguments in favor of the motion to dismiss are due April 27, the plaintiffs' reply is due 30 days later, and the state's final response is due 15 days after that.
Attorneys for the Arkansas Department of Education, arguing against the plaintiffs' request, told the Supreme Court that the original schedule "is already an expedited schedule."
"The current schedule affords the parties the opportunity to fully brief the matter before this Court," the state attorneys wrote. "The schedule urged by [the plaintiffs], however, would not provide sufficient and adequate time for briefing."
Metro on 03/25/2015