Krummen Motor Bus & Taxi Co. v. Mechanics' Lumber Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Hart, C. J.,
(after stating the facts). Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the undisputed evidence shows that the motor-bus of the plaintiff sustained substantial injury in the collision, and that a judgment based upon the verdict for nominal damages should be reversed because they were inadequate. Counsel for the defendant concede that the judgment should be reversed, and the parties only differ as to the method of procedure after the reversal of the judgment. Counsel for the plaintiff insists that the verdict as to damages should be set aside and a new trial ordered on the question of…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Dunbar v. CowgerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1900
- Carroll v. Texarkana Gas & Electric Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- Martin v. KraemerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1926
- Bothe v. MorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
3Cited by11 opinions
- May Department Stores Co. v. BellCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1932
- Smith v. Walt Bennett Ford, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
- Fulbright v. PhippsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
- Smith v. Arkansas Power & Light Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
- DeVazier v. Whit Davis Lumber CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1974
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.