Legal Opinion · Dissent

Nucor Corp. v. Kilman

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 17, 2004No. 03-864Published

1DissentRay Thornton, Justice

Because I believe stice, judgment was void ab initio from a failure of appellees to strictly comply with the requirements for a summons, and because I believe that System’s unconditional right to intervene warrants setting aside the default judgment so that it can protect its interest under the indemnification clause with Nucor, I respectfully dissent.

Rule 4(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure provides:

Form. The summons shall be styled in the name of the court and shall be dated and signed by the clerk; be under the seal of the court; contain the names of the parties; be directed to…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Smith v. Sidney Moncrief Pontiac, Buick, GMC Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
  2. Tucker v. JohnsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  3. Wilburn v. Keenan Companies, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1989
  4. Carruth v. Design Interiors, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  5. Raymond v. RaymondSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001

5 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