# Brown v. St. Paul Mercury Insurance

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 30, 1989 · 300 Ark. 241

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7824302

## Case

- **Full name:** Glenda BROWN v. ST. PAUL MERCURY INSURANCE COMPANY
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 30, 1989
- **Citations:** 300 Ark. 241; 778 S.W.2d 610; 1989 Ark. LEXIS 477
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Purtle
- **Judges:** Purtle
- **Cited by:** 7 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/7824302

## Opinion text

John I. Purtle, Justice. The trial court granted a summary judgment in favor of the appellee. We agree with the appellants’ argument for reversal that the court should have allowed a nonsuit.
This is the second appeal in this case. In Brown v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 292 Ark. 558 , 732 S.W.2d 130 (1987), we reversed and remanded the case to the trial court on a point concerning the statute of limitations.
On April 26,1989, the appellee filed a motion to dismiss. The appellants’ attorney mailed the trial judge a letter on May 4, 1989, which states in part: “In light of the defendant’s recent motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs would like to take voluntary dismissal without prejudice before a ruling by the court on the motion to dismiss.” The attorney included a draft of an order of dismissal, which the judge never signed. An amended order of dismissal stated: “That Plaintiff moved for alternative relief by Order of Dismissal without prejudice and this is denied.”
Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(a), in part states: “[A]n action may be dismissed without prejudice to a future action by the plaintiff before the final submission of the case to the jury, or to the court where the trial is by the court____”
A similar issue has been decided by this court in Duty v. Watkins, 298 Ark. 437 , 768 S.W.2d 526 (1989), where we stated: “James Duty’s request for a nonsuit should have been granted. The rule is clear that the privilege to take a nonsuit before final submission of a case is absolute.” This matter is therefore reversed and remanded to the trial court with directions to grant the appellants’ motion for the nonsuit without prejudice.
Reversed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7824302. Public record. Not legal advice.