the original filing. See id. See also St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co. v. Circuit Ct. of Craighead County, 348 Ark. 197, 73 S.W.3d 584 (2002); Andrews v. Air Evac EMS, 86 Ark. App. 161, 170 S.W.3d 303 (2004). In light of these authorities, we affirm the trial court’s ruling that the amended complaint did not relate back and that, as a result, the statute of limitations ran on the causes of action. Summary Judgment Hearing Due to conflicting correspondence from the court and opposing counsel, and some understandable confusion, appellants’ counsel did not appear at the summary-judgment hearing. Appellants argue that this constituted reversible error. However, we cannot see that appellants were prejudiced under the circumstances here. See Simmons v. Dixon, 96 Ark. App. 260, 240 S.W.3d 608 (2006) (<HOLDING>). In deference to the non-appearance of
holding that this court will reverse and remand when appellate review of a suppression order is hindered by the absence of factual findings holding that we will not reverse in the absence of prejudice holding that to reverse the bia we must find that the evidence not only supports that conclusion but compels it holding that the court of appeals may not reverse a trial courts judgment in the absence of properly assigned error holding that in the absence of demonstrated prejudice remand is unnecessary