Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Morgan v. Robertson
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980-12-17 · cited 10×
In this case, plaintiff Roland L. Morgan, acting as an officer, director, and member of the Elna M. Smith Foundation, filed a derivative action under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 against other directors alleging misfeasance and nonfeasance that violated the organization's bylaws and harmed its interests. The defendants moved to strike the Foundation as a party plaintiff, arguing it had not authorized the suit and that the plaintiff was no longer a member or officer. The trial court granted the motion, finding the Foundation was not the real party in interest and that the action was not properly certifiable as a derivative suit. On interlocutory appeal, the court affirmed the striking of the Foundation as a plaintiff, holding that in derivative actions the corporation is a necessary party and the real party in interest but must be aligned as a defendant rather than a plaintiff, while disagreeing with the lower court's conclusion that the Foundation was not the real party in interest and remanding to permit amendment of the complaint.
business & regulatoryprocedure
Brown v. Aquilino
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980-12-03 · cited 13×
In Brown v. Aquilino, appellee Brenda Aquilino sued appellant James Edwin Brown for defaulting on payments due under a promissory note issued as part of a stock sale transaction. Brown raised multiple defenses, including that an alleged oral employment agreement between the parties supplied part of the consideration for the note and related stock sale contract. The trial court granted Aquilino's motion for summary judgment after reviewing the evidence. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the parol evidence rule barred introduction of the oral agreement because the written note and stock sale contract were complete and unambiguous on their face regarding consideration, and the alleged oral terms would contradict those writings. The court also rejected Brown's claim that the stock return provision in the contract created an exclusive remedy upon default.
business & regulatoryprocedure
National Investors Life & Casualty Insurance v. Arrowood
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980-10-08 · cited 9×
This case involved the interpretation of two homeowner’s insurance policies to determine coverage for bodily injury to Sandra Arrowood caused by her former husband James Arrowood at their former home. The insurance companies sought a declaratory judgment that the policies did not apply because the injury was intentionally inflicted, which was excluded, and that one policy did not cover the specific home. The trial court ruled that the companies failed to prove the exclusions applied. On appeal, the court reversed, holding that the evidence showed the injury was intentional based on the couple’s history of domestic violence by James toward Sandra, the circumstances of the shooting, and James’s lack of memory, which was inconsistent with an accidental act.
torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory
Harris v. State
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980-10-08 · cited 17×
In Harris v. State, the defendant was charged with theft of property, waived a jury trial, and received deferred proceedings with one year of probation under Ark. Stat. § 43-1232. The State later petitioned to revoke probation after marijuana was found in the defendant's apartment, leading the trial court to revoke probation, convict him of the original theft charge, and impose a four-year prison sentence, which it refused to reduce. On appeal, the court held that revocation requires only a preponderance of the evidence rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt, that the marijuana discovery met this standard despite arguments about lack of direct linkage to the defendant, and that the exclusionary rule does not apply to probation revocation hearings to suppress evidence from a search warrant. The court also rejected claims that written probation conditions must explicitly warn of potential increased sentencing upon revocation. It affirmed the trial court's judgment in full.
criminal lawprocedure
Baldwin v. Club Products Co.
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980-09-10 · cited 8×
This workers' compensation case involved claimant Geneva Lee Baldwin, who injured her right arm, shoulder, and back while employed as a packer and performing heavy lifting at Club Products Company. The Administrative Law Judge and full commission denied benefits after finding she had knowingly made false statements on her employment application about prior injuries and claims, satisfying the three-part Larson test adopted in Shippers Transport of Georgia v. Stepp. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding there was no substantial evidence of a causal connection between her 1969 left-arm injury and the 1977 right-side injury, as required by the test, and distinguishing the facts from cases where such a link was proven by medical testimony or obvious circumstances. The court noted the employer's reliance on the misrepresentation but concluded the third factor was not met, remanding implicitly for further proceedings including on the change-of-physician request.
labor & employment
Bussey v. Bank of Malvern
Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 1980-08-27 · cited 13×
This case involved the Bank of Malvern suing several defendants on a promissory note for over $77,000, with the defendants admitting they signed the note but contesting liability based on lack of consideration and bank misrepresentations. After both parties moved for directed verdicts at trial, the court removed the case from the jury and ruled for the bank. On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, holding that Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 50(a), effective July 1, 1979, abolished the prior practice allowing the court to decide the case when both sides seek directed verdicts, thereby preserving the defendants' constitutional right to a jury trial which had been improperly denied.
procedure