Anti-stacking clauses have been upheld by Arkansas courts so long as they are not ambiguous. See generally Smith v. Prudential Prop. Cas. Ins., 340 Ark. 335 (2000); Shelter Mut. Ins. Co. v. Williams, 69 Ark. App. 35 (2000); Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 Ark. 73 (1998); Kanning v. Allstate Ins. Cos., 67 Ark. App. 135 (1999); MFA Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wallace, 245 Ark. 230 (1968). The Arkansas Supreme Court has recently had several occasions to overrule Wallace and its progeny and has not done so.

See Pardon v. Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Ins. Co., 315 Ark. 537, 868 S.W.2d 468 (1994). In Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 Ark. 73, 971 S.W.2d 248 (1998), we discussed a simple rule for analyzing almost any stacking problem: "Read the Statute and Read the Policy!" Youngman, 334 Ark. at 79, 971 S.W.2d at 251 (citing State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Beavers, 321 Ark. 292, 901 S.W.2d 13 (1995) (quoting Douglass and Telegadis, Stacking of Uninsured and Underinsured Motor Vehicle Coverages, 24 U. Rich. L. Rev. 87 (Fall 1989)).

The moving party always bears the burden of sustaining a motion for summary judgment. Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 Ark. 73, 971 S.W.2d 248 (1998). All proof must be viewed in the light most favorable to the resisting party, and any doubts must be resolved against the moving party.

See Sproles v. Associated Brigham Contractors, Inc., 319 Ark. 94, 889 S.W.2d 740, 742 (1994) (describing the Restatement of Torts and the law of other jurisdictions as "forceful authority"). While Arkansas law occasionally diverges from the majority rule on tort liability questions, see, e.g., Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 Ark. 73, 971 S.W.2d 248, 250-51 (1998) (reaffirming that Arkansas does not adhere to the majority rule that allows an injured insured motorist to recover from multiple uninsured motorist insurance policies), our examination of the trend in Arkansas in expanding tort liability and the policy under-girding the application of the joint-enterprise defense convince us that the Arkansas Supreme Court would not find a justification for departing from the majority rule in this case. Generally speaking, the zone of tort liability in Arkansas has been expanding.

Accordingly, our review must focus on the circuit court's application of the law to the facts. Harasyn v. St. Paul Guardian Ins. Co., 349 Ark. 9, 75 S.W.3d 696 (2002); Chamberlin v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 343 Ark. 392, 36 S.W.3d 281 (2001); Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 Ark. 73, 971 S.W.2d 248 (1998). In this regard, a circuit court's conclusions of law are given no deference on appeal. Morningstar v. Bush, 2011 Ark. 350, 383 S.W.3d 840.

[1-3] When we grant a petition to review a case decided by the court of appeals, we review all of the issues raised in the court below as if they were originally filed in this court. Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 Ark. 73, 971 S.W.2d 248 (1998); Williams v. State, 328 Ark. 487, 944 S.W.2d 822 (1997). A trial court is not required to award attorney's fees and, because of the trial judge's intimate acquaintance with the trial proceedings and the quality of service rendered by the prevailing party's counsel, we usually recognize the superior perspective of the trial judge in determining whether to award attorney's fees. Jones v. Abraham, 341 Ark. 66, 15 S.W.3d 310 (2000); Chrisco v. Sun Industries Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990).

[1] When this court grants a petition for review of a case decided by the court of appeals, we review the case as if the appeal was originally filed in this court. Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 Ark. 73, 971 S.W.2d 248 (1998). We first address whether § 28-9-209(d) of the Probate Code controls the issue of Joshua's intervention in the approval of the wrongful-death settlement.

[3] When we grant a petition to review a case decided by the court of appeals, we review it as if it were originally filed in this court. Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 Ark. 73, 971 S.W.2d 248 (1998); Williams v. State, 328 Ark. 487, 944 S.W.2d 822 (1997). All of the issues raised in the court below are before the appellate court for decision, and trial de novo on appeal in equity cases involves determination of fact questions as well as legal issues.

When this court grants a petition to review a case decided by the Court of Appeals, we review it as if it was originally filed in this court. McKay v. McKay, 340 Ark. 171, 8 S.W.3d 525 (2000); Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 334 Ark. 73, 971 S.W.2d 248 (1998). For its first point on appeal, Conagra contends that the trial court erred in failing to grant its motion for a directed verdict at the close of the trial and its motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after the verdict was returned.

[1]When this court grants a petition to review a case decided by the court of appeals, it reviews the case as if it had originally been filed in this court. Youngman v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 334 Ark. 73, 971 S.W.2d 248 (1998). The pivotal point raised by T T in this appeal is whether the Van Buren County circuit judge erred in finding that only the Crawford County Circuit Court had jurisdiction over this matter as part of the garnishment process.