Legal Opinion · Dissent

Spires v. Russell

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 4, 1989No. 89-157Published

1DissentDarrell Hickman, Justice

The majority is wrong when it states this case does not involve the retroactive application of a statute. It does.

At the time the property damage occurred in this case, the defendants were liable only for singular damages. The majority’s application of Act 70, which allows the imposition of double damages, retroactively enlarges that liability. Statutes which impose, remove or change a monetary limitation on recovery should be applied prospectively only. Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co., 569 P.2d 974 (Okla. 1977). In that case, the administrator’s decedent was killed in an accident. At the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Thomas v. Cumberland Operating Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1977
  2. Kleibrink v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Co.Supreme Court of Kansas · 1978
  3. Roberson v. RobersonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
  4. Arkansas Rural Medical Practice Student Loan & Scholarship Board v. LuterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1987
  5. Helm v. BollmanCalifornia Court of Appeal · 1959

8 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