Legal Opinion · Dissent

City of Fort Smith v. Carter

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 10, 2005No. 05-198Published

1DissentRobert L. Brown, Justice

I agree that Rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate in this case. I must, however, dissent from the majority’s tortured reasoning. What the majority has done is apply a 1995 attorney’s fee statute which amended an 1895 act (subchapter six) to a separate 1957 act, which set up a new procedure (subchapter four). The effect of this decision will be to saddle all municipalities with attorney’s fees even when the cities proceed under procedures in different subchapters where attorney’s fees are not contemplated. That is not right and defies legislative intent. Plus, it is unfair to those…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Harris v. Manor Healthcare Corp.Illinois Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Ozark Gas Pipeline Corp. v. Arkansas Public Service CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000
  3. Damron v. University Estates, Phase II, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1988
  4. BWH, Inc. v. Metropolitan National BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
  5. State ex rel. Whitmore v. BarboglioUtah Supreme Court · 1924

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