Desoto Gathering Co. v. Hill
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentRhonda K. Wood, Justice
Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(8) precludes DeSoto's refund claim. Because this court (1) should stop citing antiquated precedent analyzing the demurrer statute's language and instead interpret the precise language contained in Rule 12(b)(8) ; (2) should interpret the phrase "same transaction and occurrence" consistently with how we interpret the same phrase within Rule 13; and (3) should, as a matter of policy, use the same transactional approach for our treatment of compulsory claims, permissive claims, and claim preclusion, I dissent. Simply put, I ask that this court be consistent…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Potter v. City of TontitownSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2007
- Estate of Goston v. Ford Motor Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
- Mark Twain Life Ins. Corp. v. CorySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
- Patterson v. IsomSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
- Linn v. NationsBankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.