Legal Opinion

Duty v. Watkins

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 24, 1989No. 88-291PublishedCited by 8 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

The appellants’ lawsuit was dismissed because they refused to comply with an order compelling discovery. We affirm the court’s action dismissing the appellant Opal Duty with prejudice, but we reverse and remand to allow James Duty to take a nonsuit.

James Duty and his mother, Opal, filed suit against Barry Watkins, an attorney. Watkins filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to answer discovery requests. Since Judge Kim Smith had disqualified himself in the case, the motion to dismiss was heard by Judge Mahlon Gibson.

James Duty appeared pro se at the…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Haller v. HallerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1962
  2. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Ass'n v. TilleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927

3Cited by8 opinions

  1. Wright v. EddingerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  2. Jenkins v. GoldsbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  3. Brown v. St. Paul Mercury InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
  4. White v. PerrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2002
  5. Coombs v. Hot Springs Village Property Owners Ass'nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2001

3 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