The Law Office of Geoffrey D. Kearney, PLLC

10/02/2026

The underlying facts of this case, in which one man killed another in a road rage incident, are sad, senseless, and awful. Still, every individual who steps into a courtroom, even those who have been determined to have committed a horrible act, are entitled to be treated fairly under the law.

While sentencing hearings have more relaxed evidentiary standards than perhaps any other judicial proceeding, defendants still receive certain baseline guarantees. And the Arizona Court of Appeals, in what might be the first decision addressing the issue, has held that an AI-generated video purporting to convey the thoughts and feelings of a homicide victim was violative of those guarantees. Accordingly, that court has ordered a new sentencing hearing.

AI’s foothold in the legal field expands by the day. But wherever one stands on AI, it cannot be allowed to override longstanding, bedrock legal principles meant to protect our rights. This decision appears to be the right one.

An Arizona appeals court has overturned the sentence of Gabriel Pau...

09/07/2026

Happy Labor Day to all workers, whether you work 9 to 5, the late shift, a few days on and a few days off, part-time, or whatever else!

07/29/2026

There’s nothing like a great day in federal court. Proud of my client for accepting responsibility for doing something they shouldn’t have and doing everything needed to get back on the right track. And so pleased to have helped them get the absolute legal minimum, so they can go home and continue to make amends and put good into the world.

06/24/2026

Thanks so much to the Arkansas Bar Association for this service award.

05/21/2026

Happy to have this short piece on a recent case out of the Western District of Missouri federal published in the St. Louis University Law Journal Online.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446, defendants typically have one year to remove to federal court a case filed in state court. The landscape for removal changed somewhat with a 2011 amendment to this statute, which extends that one-year deadline upon a showing “that the plaintiff has acted in bad faith...

05/04/2026

Last week, we got an interesting, important opinion from the Supreme Court of Arkansas holding that Act 975 of 2025, a statutory amendment vesting jurisdiction for facial constitutional challenges* in the Arkansas Court of Appeals, is unconstitutional. As such, the state of the law will return to the way it was before the law was passed: Constitutional challenges of all kinds raised in state court will generally be brought in circuit courts before, if necessary, going up on appeal.

https://www.kark.com/news/arkansas-courts/arkansas-supreme-court-rules-in-paper-ballot-case-ends-state-law-on-jurisdiction/

*There are essentially two types of constitutional challenges. An as-applied challenge argues that, while a law might be constitutional under *some* circumstances, it violates the state or federal constitution with respect to the litigant(s)/facts presented by a particular case. A facial challenge is an argument that a given law ALWAYS violates the state or federal constitution, no matter the circumstances.

Link to Opinion: https://opinions.arcourts.gov/ark/supremecourt/en/524403/1/document.do

The Arkansas Supreme Court ruled that a 2025 law giving the Arkansas Court of Appeals jurisdiction over constitutional challenges was unconstitutional, as it overrode the state constitution’s…

04/11/2026

While I don’t know much about this specific organization or program, this initiative certainly seems to be potentially valuable for would-be entrepreneurs in Pine Bluff and surrounding areas.

A new initiative from Communities Unlimited is working to address one of the biggest challenges facing rural entrepreneurs: access to capital. The effort begins with an “Empower Entrepreneurship” training session scheduled for April 18 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. at the Economic Research and […]

03/31/2026

The Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) is among the most pro-worker statutes in the entire Federal Code. It protects employees from improper pay practices, and is primarily concerned with ensuring, as relevant here, that workers are paid no less than minimum wage.

After several years of litigation, Perry’s Steakhouse and Grill, a Houston restaurant, has learned the hard way just how powerful the FLSA can be. Thanks to problems with the restaurant’s tip-pooling arrangement, a federal judge has entered a roughly $21M judgment in favor of a class of employee plaintiffs.

It’s an interesting case in an area of law with a fair bit of nuance, and I might follow up with a longer blog post. But for now, a short article on the case is attached. And a link to Department of Labor guidance on tip pools is in the comments.

Given the numerous legal issues raised by the case and the amount of the award, an appeal seems likely. Nonetheless, this case is a reminder that businesses should be vigilant about ensuring that they are in compliance with wage and hour laws and employees should be aware that the FLSA is a potentially major source of protection for them.

This firm is always happy to speak to workers who think their FLSA rights have been violated.

That's a lot of pork chops.

03/23/2026

Here’s an interesting, potentially useful Arkansas law for today…

Under Ark. Code Ann. § 11-4-405, employers must pay a discharged employee “all wages due by the next regular payday.” If the employer fails to do so “within seven (7) days of the next regular payday,” the employer will owe the employee “double the wages due.”

This statute doesn’t get cited in court much. Most employers seem to do a decent job of getting discharged employees paid in a timely fashion. But this provision can be a useful tool in ensuring that an employer dragging their feet complies with its obligations or, if they don’t, forcing them to face the consequences for it.

03/04/2026

Appellate waivers close off review of so many federal criminal appeals that might otherwise set out strong arguments for reversal. A decision rendering them less restrictive, even just a bit less so, would be a welcome benefit to potentially many criminal defendants.

The justices worried that closing off all expectations to appellate waivers would cement unlawful sentencing decisions and bring the judiciary into disrepute.