# Gray v. Moreland

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · March 3, 2010 · 2010 Ark. App. 207

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5110454

## Case

- **Full name:** Don GRAY v. Bob MORELAND and Moreland Aviation Enterprises, Inc.
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** March 3, 2010
- **Citations:** 2010 Ark. App. 207; 374 S.W.3d 178; 2010 Ark. App. LEXIS 206
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hart
- **Judges:** Brown, Gladwin, Hart
- **Cited by:** 4 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5110454

## Opinion text

HART, J., concurring.
I do not agree with the majority’s analysis on why the issue was not preserved for appellate review. The majority notes that the jury sent the court a note requesting the “dollar amount that each party is asking for,” and with the consent of the parties, the court answered that Moreland was requesting $9385 from Gray. The majority apparently holds that by not objecting, Gray consented to a verdict in that amount.
In my view, a defendant can agree that the plaintiff is “asking for” a specific amount of damages without having admitted that he owes that amount. For instance, a debtor can agree that, as stated on the bill, a creditor is “asking for” ten dollars. But this does not mean 18that the debtor has agreed that the creditor is owed ten dollars. Nevertheless, I agree that Gray’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the award was not preserved for appellate review, as neither the argument he made in his directed-verdict motion nor the argument in his new-trial motion was the same as the argument he now makes on appeal.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/5110454. Public record. Not legal advice.