Interstate Oil and Supply Co. v. Troutman Oil Co.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentAnnabelle Clinton Imber, Justice
I must respectfully dissent because I cannot agree with the majority’s holding that Troutman was properly allowed to prove damages in excess of $50,000.
In its original and amended complaints, Troutman alleged that its damages were “undetermined” but “exceed[ed] $10,000.” The majority acknowledges that Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(a), a general rule of pleading that applies to all claims for relief, determines jurisdiction and provides in relevant part that:
In claims for unliquidated damage, a demand containing no specified amount of money shall limit recovery to an amount less than required for federal…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- King v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
- Menard v. City of CarlisleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992