Legal Opinion · Dissent

Interstate Oil and Supply Co. v. Troutman Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 1, 1998No. 97-1414Published

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

  1. King v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  2. Menard v. City of CarlisleSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API