Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Family Dollar Trucking, Inc. v. Huff

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided October 21, 2015No. CV-14-603Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partBrandon J. Harrison, Judge

I agree with all of my colleagues’ decisions that the outrage claim and the related damages verdict and judgment must b,e reversed and dismissed. I also agree with the majority that substantial evidence supports the jury’s verdict on the malicious-prosecution claim.

|«J respectfully dissent, however, on the amount of money the jury awarded on that' claim. A $2.75 million aggregate award in favor of Jimmy Huff and Robert Ward is shockingly excessive and should be significantly reduced. The jury decided that these men were damaged by Family Dollar’s actions. But even viewing the evidence in the…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Advocat, Inc. v. SauerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
  2. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. TuckerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
  3. Travis Lumber Co. v. DeichmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2009
  4. Avery v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  5. Avery v. WardSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996

3 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