Legal Opinion · Dissent

Stautzenberger v. Stautzenberger

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 11, 2013No. 12-432Published

1DissentPaul E. Danielson, Justice

While I too would affirm on the Rule 60 issue, I would reverse and remand for entirely different reasons with respect to the disallowance of expenditures. I therefore respectfully concur in part and dissent in part.

First, I agree that the circuit court was within its discretion in modifying its previous order. Under Ark. R. Civ. P. 60(a) (2012), a circuit court may, within ninety days, modify or vacate a judgment, order, or decree, on its own motion or that of any party, with prior notice to all parties, “[t]o correct errors or mistakes or to prevent the miscarriage of justice.” The only…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Coleman v. Regions BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2005
  2. Lord v. MazzanatiSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
  3. RLI Insurance v. CoeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
  4. McCuen v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
  5. Seymour v. BiehslichSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2007

8 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