Arnold & Arnold v. Williams
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentSteele Hays, Justice
Today’s decision narrowly interprets the rules of civil procedure and completely ignores the 1990 Amendment to ARCP Rule 55 which adopted a more liberal standard regarding default judgments to reflect a preference for deciding cases on the merits rather than on technicalities. Because I believe the trial court erred in striking the answers in both cases and in granting a default judgment in Case No. E-90-156,1 dissent to the Court’s holding.
The Williamses argue the trial court erred in striking their answer in Case No. E-90-127. Although Arnold & Arnold originally filed its complaint on…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- United Coin Meter Company, Inc., a Michigan Corporation v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, a Virginia CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
- Cammack v. ChalmersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
- Divelbliss v. SuchorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
- Hubbard v. Shores Group, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
- RLI Insurance v. CoeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.