Smith v. Hopper
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentKaren R. Baker, Justice
|7I dissent from the majority opinion because the circuit court committed a manifest abuse of discretion in granting Hopper’s motion for a new trial.
In Jones Rigging & Heavy Hauling, Inc. v. Parker, 347 Ark. 628, 66 S.W.3d 599 (2002), this court explained that a contemporaneous-objection is required when a new trial is sought on the basis of accident or surprise under Rule 59(a)(3) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure. The same contemporaneous objection requirement should equally apply here where a motion for new trial is based upon Rule 59(a)(2). Based on our reasoning in Jones, Hopper…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Foundation Telecommunications, Inc. v. Moe Studio, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
- Jones v. Double "D" Properties, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
- Sullinger v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
- Pearson v. HenricksonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
- Wilson v. WilsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.