# White v. Perry

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · May 16, 2002 · 348 Ark. 675

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7827456

## Case

- **Full name:** Robert WHITE v. Jim PERRY, David Hudson, Frank Atkinson, and Marcy Porter, In Their Official Capacities as Assessor, County Judge, Collector, and Treasurer for Sebastian County, Arkansas Charlie Daniels, In His Official Capacity as Arkansas Land Commissioner and Jimmie Lou Fisher, Arkansas State Treasurer Greenwood School District Hackett School District Hartford School District Lavaca School District Charleston School District Mansfield School District Booneville School District Westark Community College City of Barling, Arkansas City of Greenwood, Arkansas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** May 16, 2002
- **Citations:** 348 Ark. 675; 74 S.W.3d 628; 2002 Ark. LEXIS 299
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Glaze
- **Judges:** Brown, Glaze, Imber
- **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/7827456

## Opinion text

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. I concur. While the court reverses and remands this case because of an error, such reversal in no way means the trial court may not consider any collateral Rule 11 issue that might still be pending. Although the appellant had an absolute right to a nonsuit in the circumstances here, an appellant (or anyone entitled to a nonsuit) is never automatically relieved of the duty and responsibility under Rule 11 to certify that, to the best of his knowledge, information, and beliefs formed after reasonable inquiry, his pleading, motion, or other paper is well grounded in fact and is warranted by existing law or a good-faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, and that it is not interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
Appellants’ counsel, Mr. Oscar Stilley, submits the trial court ruled in his favor on the Rule 11 issue, which the trial court raised on its own initiative due to its concern that appellant and Mr. Stilley filed a complaint that was in direct violation of the Arkansas Supreme Court’s prior law and rulings. If the trial court has ruled on the Rule 11 issue, no further action may be warranted; however, if that issue has not been dismissed, nothing in this court’s decision today automatically disposes of the issue.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7827456. Public record. Not legal advice.