Legal Opinion

Nissen v. Flournoy

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 8, 1923PublishedCited by 11 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Hart, J.,

(after stating the facts). The errors complained of are that the court erred in instructing the jury. Without quoting the language of the charge, it may be said that the court, in effect, told the jury that the plaintiff could not recover without establishing a special or express promise to pay her. The court also told the jury that the evidence showed that the relationship between the claimant and the deceased was sister and brother, and that, where this relationship exists, the law presumes that the services were rendered gratuitously and without compensation.

We are of the opinion…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Williams v. WaldenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1907
  2. Lewis v. LewisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
  3. Ford v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1870

3Cited by11 opinions

  1. Graves v. BowlesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
  2. Keeton v. BozarkSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1960
  3. The Peoples National Bk., Admr. v. CohnSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
  4. Capps v. ClineSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1957
  5. Meers v. PotterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1945

6 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