Legal Opinion

Copeland v. Hollingsworth

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 19, 1976No. 75-358PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

Frank Holt, Justice.

This appeal results from a jury verdict against the appellants for damages to appellee’s tomato crops sustained from the spraying of 2,4,5-T herbicide. Pursuant to a written contract, appellant Copeland sprayed appellant Potlatch’s timberland with this herbicide.

Appellants assert that the trial court erred in giving certain instructions to the jury. Appellants first argue that neither strict liability nor res ipsa loquitor was alleged in the complaint and, therefore, the trial court erred in submitting the case to the jury on theories not pleaded. Appellee responds that…

Also in this document: Dissent.

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Walton v. Sherwin-Williams Co.Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1951
  2. The Hammond Ranch Corporation v. DodsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1940
  3. Ozark Fruit Growers Ass'n v. TetrickSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
  4. General Motors Acceptance Corporation v. WhatleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1930

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. Wilson v. Greg Williams Farm, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2014

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

Powered by the Exa API