Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Arthur v. Zearley

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 10, 1995No. 94-1012Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Ernie E. Wright, Special Associate Justice,

concurring in part, dissenting in part. I concur in the Majority opinion reversing the judgment of the trial court certifying this case as a class action; however, I disagree with its holding that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing Mr. Hicks, an attorney for the appellees, to testify at the pretrial proceeding on the procedural issue of whether the case should be certified as a class action. The word “pretrial” suggests proceedings preliminary to the trial itself, which normally refers to a trial on the merits.

Mr. Hicks’s testimony was…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Mentor Lagoons, Inc. v. RubinOhio Supreme Court · 1987
  2. United States v. Eugene MorrisCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1983
  3. Henry v. EberhardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  4. Kapco Mfg. Co., Inc. v. C & O ENTERPRISES, INC.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1985
  5. Peters v. PierceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993

4 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