Legal Opinion

Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Heyligers

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 12, 1934No. 4-3327PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSmith, J.

The testimony at the trial from which this appeal comes is in irreconcilable conflict as to the cause and extent of the injury, to compensate which a verdict was returned by the jury in plaintiff’s favor for the sum of $2,200.

The testimony in appellee’s favor, which we must assume was credited by the jury, is to the following effect: She was riding as a guest in an automobile traveling east on Markham Street, in the city of Little Bock. Automobiles were parked along and adjacent to the sidewalk on the south side of Markham Street. Two other lines of automobiles, approaching the intersection…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Arkansas Valley Trust Co. v. McIlroySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  2. Beal-Doyle Dry Goods Co. v. CarrSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1908
  3. Public Utilities Corp. of Ark. v. CordellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931
  4. Royal Neighbors v. McCullarSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1920

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Honeycutt v. WaldenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
  2. Schwam v. ReeceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
  3. Williams v. GatesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  4. Sylvester v. U-Drive-Em SystemSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1936
  5. Beason v. WithingtonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1934

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API