Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Wilson v. Fullerton

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 5, 1998No. 397-358Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partAnnabelle Clinton Imber, Justice

I

I would deny Fullerton and Bradley Motor’s motion to dismiss appeal. Wilson’s attempt to execute on the reduced judgment while Fullerton and Bradley Motor had failed to obtain a supersedeas bond is consistent with the relief he seeks on appeal. Wilson’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in reducing the verdicts that the jury originally awarded. The only remedy that he requests from this court is that we reinstate the amount of the original verdicts. Thus, there is no risk that Wilson will receive a smaller recovery should we affirm or reverse on direct appeal.

Of course,…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Illingworth v. BushongOregon Supreme Court · 1984
  2. Shepherd v. State Auto Property & Casualty InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1993
  3. Schlecht v. BlissOregon Supreme Court · 1975
  4. Bolen v. CumbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1890
  5. First National Bank v. Energy Equities Inc.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 1977

11 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