Legal Opinion · Dissent

Thomas v. Cornell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided March 21, 1994No. 93-906Published

1DissentDavid Newbern, Justice

The basis of our decision in Weidrick v. Arnold, 310 Ark. 138, 835 S.W.2d 843 (1992), was that Ark. Code Ann. § 16-114-204 (1987) conflicted with Ark. R. Civ. R 3 because it added a condition for commencing a civil action for medical injury. The condition added was the requirement that a plaintiff wait 60 days after notifying the defendant before commencing an action for medical injury. The question here is whether our invalidation of the 60-day requirement for commencement of an action for medical injury caused the entire statute, including the statute of limitations extension, to be invalid.

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Weidrick v. ArnoldSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  2. Gay v. RabonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
  3. Cox v. BardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1990

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

Powered by the Exa API