Legal Opinion · Dissent

Arnold & Arnold v. Williams

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 31, 1994No. 92-1271Published

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

  1. United Coin Meter Company, Inc., a Michigan Corporation v. Seaboard Coastline Railroad, a Virginia CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1983
  2. Cammack v. ChalmersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
  3. Divelbliss v. SuchorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  4. Hubbard v. Shores Group, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
  5. RLI Insurance v. CoeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991

7 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