Legal Opinion

Wells v. Parker

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 17, 1905PublishedCited by 12 opinions

The court’s instruction as to the existence of probable cause was erroneous. 63 Ark. 387; 98 U. S. 195; 13 Gray, 201; 15 Mass. 243; 3 B. Mon. 4; 69 Ark. 439; 71 Ark. 362. This case should be dismissed for noncompliance with Rule IX. 85 S. W. 776. The jury’s findings upon questions of fact are conclusive. 23 Ark. 208, 131; 40 Ark. 168; 19 Ark. 684. Exceptions to the instructions were not properly saved. 32 Ark. 224; 28 Ark. 18; 39 Ark. 339; 38 Ark. 539; 59 Ark. 465. The bill…

Read the full summary

The court’s instruction as to the existence of probable cause was erroneous. 63 Ark. 387; 98 U. S. 195; 13 Gray, 201; 15 Mass. 243; 3 B. Mon. 4; 69 Ark. 439; 71 Ark. 362. This case should be dismissed for noncompliance with Rule IX. 85 S. W. 776. The jury’s findings upon questions of fact are conclusive. 23 Ark. 208, 131; 40 Ark. 168; 19 Ark. 684. Exceptions to the instructions were not properly saved. 32 Ark. 224; 28 Ark. 18; 39 Ark. 339; 38 Ark. 539; 59 Ark. 465. The bill of exceptions does not show all the evidence in the case. 45 Ark. 240; 43 Ark. 451; 2 Ark. 33. The dismissal of the…

1Opinion of the CourtHike, C. J.

This is a suit for malicious prosecution, and terminated in the circuit court in a judgment for the plaintiff for $500, and the defendant has prosecuted this appeal.

1. The motion for new trial presents four grounds. The first three are that the verdict is contrary to the law, to the evidence and to the law and evidence. The fourth is: “The court erred in giving instructions, Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9 asked for by the plaintiff.” The exception upon which this assignment is based reads as follows: “The defendant at the time excepted to the giving of instructions numbered 2, 3, 4, 5, 8 and 9, and…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Holliday v. HollidayCalifornia Supreme Court · 1898
  2. Ross v. HixonSupreme Court of Kansas · 1891
  3. Hale v. BoylenWest Virginia Supreme Court · 1883
  4. Miller v. Chicago, M. & St. P. Ry. Co.U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Western Missouri · 1890

3Cited by12 opinions

  1. Froehlich v. Ohio Department of Mental HealthOhio Supreme Court · 2007
  2. Kansas City Southern Railway Co. v. MorrisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906
  3. Gulf States Paper Corp. v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Alabama · 1983
  4. L. B. Price Mercantile Co. v. CuillaSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  5. Jacks v. ReevesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1906

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