Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Caldwell v. Jenkins

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided June 23, 1993No. CA 92-1304Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMelvin Mayfield, Judge

Although I concur with the majority opinion in affirming the attorney’s fee allowed by the trial court, I cannot agree with the majority opinion in affirming the trial court’s increase of compensatory damages. To explain my dissent, I first note that, as stated in appellant’s abstract, the amended complaint filed by the appellees alleged three causes of action.

One cause of action was based on 15 U.S.C. § 1984 (1982), which provides that “no person shall disconnect, reset, or alter or cause to be altered, the odometer of any motor vehicle with intent to change the number of miles indicated…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. In the Matter of Emanuel JosephsonCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1954
  2. Henry v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  3. Looper v. Madison Guaranty Savings & Loan Ass'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
  4. Stoner v. HoustonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
  5. Bill Terry's Inc. v. Atlantic Motor Sales, Inc.District Court of Appeal of Florida · 1982

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