No Appellate Jurisdiction Without Finality: Mixed § 14-56-425 Zoning Appeals and Civil Claims Require Full Disposition or Rule 54(b) Certification

Introduction

In Eureka Gun and Pawn, LLC; And Keeling Grubb v. the City of Eureka Springs via Mayor Robert D. Berry, 2026 Ark. 1, the Arkansas Supreme Court dismissed an appeal for lack of a final, appealable order. The dispute arose after Eureka Gun and Pawn, LLC and its president, Keeling Grubb (collectively, “appellants”), sought a conditional-use permit (“CUP”) to operate a gun-and-pawn shop in Eureka Springs. The City’s Planning Commission and then its City Council denied the CUP. Appellants responded by filing in circuit court a single pleading that both (i) appealed the municipal land-use decision under Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-56-425 and (ii) asserted multiple constitutional and statutory civil claims (including Arkansas Civil Rights Act theories).

The circuit court held a bench trial limited to “count one” (the CUP appeal) and left the remaining counts for later. After granting the City’s motion for directed verdict on count one and denying appellants’ partial summary-judgment motion, the circuit court did not adjudicate the remaining claims and did not execute a Rule 54(b) certificate. Appellants appealed anyway. The Supreme Court’s central issue was jurisdictional: whether the circuit court’s orders were final or otherwise appealable.

Summary of the Opinion

The court (Chief Justice Karen R. Baker) dismissed the appeal without prejudice because the appealed orders were not final. The circuit court expressly tried only count one, leaving numerous other counts pending. Appellants themselves acknowledged their remaining claims were “NOT abandoned.” Because the circuit court had not disposed of all claims as to all parties—and there was no Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) certification—the Supreme Court lacked appellate jurisdiction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

  • Crafton, Tull, Sparks & Assocs. v. Ruskin Heights, LLC, 2013 Ark. 85: Cited for two core propositions: (1) finality is jurisdictional and may be raised sua sponte, and (2) absent compliance with Rule 54(b), an order adjudicating fewer than all claims is not final for appeal.
  • Hotels.com, L.P. v. Pine Bluff Advert. & Promotion Comm'n, 2021 Ark. 196, 632 S.W.3d 742: Reinforces the court’s duty to assess appellate jurisdiction independently, regardless of whether parties raise the issue.
  • Ark. Dep't of Fin. & Admin. v. Naturalis Health, LLC, 2018 Ark. 224, 549 S.W.3d 901: Provides the operative definition of finality: a final order dismisses parties, discharges them, or concludes their rights; an order contemplating further action is not final.
  • Gray v. White River Health Sys., Inc., 2016 Ark. 73, 483 S.W.3d 293: Explains that the anti-piecemeal policy can be overcome only through a properly executed Rule 54(b) certificate supported by specific factual findings.
  • Combs v. City of Springdale, 366 Ark. 31, 233 S.W.3d 130 (2006) (cited in concurrence): Invoked to emphasize that appeals under Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-56-425 are tried de novo in circuit court.

Legal Reasoning

The majority’s reasoning is a straightforward application of Arkansas appellate finality doctrine. Rule 2(a)(1) of the Arkansas Rules of Appellate Procedure–Civil permits appeals generally only from final judgments. Rule 54(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure establishes that an order adjudicating fewer than all claims is not final unless the circuit court expressly certifies it for immediate appeal using the Rule’s required certificate and findings.

The record made nonfinality unmistakable. The circuit court’s scheduling order set a bench trial “on count one” and explicitly stated the “other counts” would be resolved later. At trial, appellants’ counsel confirmed the narrow scope: the court would decide only whether the CUP should issue under the ordinance, while other theories remained in abeyance. After trial, appellants filed an amended complaint adding an illegal-takings theory—further confirming ongoing litigation in circuit court.

Appellants attempted to argue that denial of count one “effectively dismisses” the remaining counts because those counts “hinge upon” success on count one. The Supreme Court rejected that characterization: the circuit court’s orders granted directed verdict on the CUP entitlement question but did not adjudicate the separate constitutional and statutory claims. Moreover, the takings claim appeared for the first time in the amended complaint filed after the bench trial, undermining any assertion that it had been “effectively dismissed.” With claims still pending and no Rule 54(b) certificate, appellate jurisdiction was absent.

Impact

1) Procedural discipline in “mixed” pleadings. The decision underscores a recurring trap: combining an administrative appeal (here, a § 14-56-425 CUP appeal) with multiple original civil claims in a single action can create finality problems if the circuit court stages the case and adjudicates only the administrative count first. Without an order disposing of all remaining counts—or a proper Rule 54(b) certificate—any appeal is premature.

2) Litigant strategy and judicial case management. Parties who want immediate review of a discrete land-use ruling must ensure the circuit court either resolves all claims or executes a Rule 54(b)(1) certificate with specific factual findings. Otherwise, appellate review is delayed, and resources spent briefing merits may be wasted.

3) Substantive “signals” in concurrences (nonbinding but instructive). Although the Supreme Court did not reach the merits, the concurrences (Justice Womack, joined by Justice Webb; and Justice Bronni) provide a road map for remand litigation: they criticize the circuit court’s approach to de novo review under § 14-56-425 and its interpretation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-16-504(b)(1)(A) and the “nearly identical” Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-54-1411(b)(1)(A)(i). These passages may influence how the circuit court proceeds, but they do not alter the holding: dismissal for lack of finality.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Final order: A decision that ends the case in the trial court—nothing meaningful remains for the judge to decide. If any claims remain pending, the order is typically not appealable yet.
  • Rule 54(b) certificate: A mechanism allowing appeal of part of a case (some claims or parties) before the rest is finished, but only if the circuit court makes an express “no just reason for delay” determination supported by specific factual findings and issues the required certificate.
  • De novo review (in § 14-56-425 appeals): The circuit court hears the matter anew and makes its own determination, rather than deferring to the municipal body’s prior decision. (This point is emphasized in the concurrence.)
  • Firearms preemption statutes (as discussed in concurrence): Statutes like Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-16-504 and section 14-54-1411 restrict local governments from regulating certain firearms-related conduct. The concurrence argues that “transfer” naturally includes commercial sales and that preemption can be harmonized with municipal zoning powers—i.e., cities may regulate where uses occur (zoning) but not effectively prohibit firearm transfers.

Conclusion

Eureka Gun and Pawn, 2026 Ark. 1, is a jurisdictional decision with a clear practical rule: when a circuit court adjudicates only one count in a multi-claim action—especially where an administrative appeal under Arkansas Code Annotated section 14-56-425 is bundled with constitutional and statutory claims—there is no appeal as of right unless all claims are resolved or the court enters a compliant Rule 54(b) certificate. The appeal was therefore dismissed without prejudice, leaving the parties to obtain a final disposition in circuit court before merits review can occur.