in case concerning preclusion by res judicata, record from first case in circuit court was part of the record in the appeal of the second, chancery court, action, and this court relied upon order and documents from circuit court record in making decision on appeal of chancery case
How later courts described this case
- in case concerning preclusion by res judicata, record from first case in circuit court was part of the record in the appeal of the second, chancery court, action, and this court relied upon order and documents from circuit court record in making decision on appeal of chancery case
- “The exact same parties are not required as it is sufficient if there is substantial identity of the parties.”
- "One fair trial on the merits of the case is all [the parties] are entitled to."
- elements of res judicata
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Darrell Hickman, Justice, concurring. I agree with the decision reached but want to emphasize two things. First, I still believe the majority was wrong in ordering reappraisal to take place over five years. Reappraisal implementation was no doubt a decision for the other branches of government. I still feel that this court’s role was limited to deciding whether the constitution was being followed. Arkansas Public Service Commission v. Pulaski County Board of Equalization, 266 Ark. 64 , 582 S.W. 2d 942 (1979). But that is water long over the dam. The appellant attempts to reopen this case almost three years later. Right or wrong, reappraisal has been ordered and it ought to proceed.
Actually, the General Assembly decided to have the reappraisal done in three years (Act 69 of 1980 [Extraordinary Session]) after our decision. This caused yet another lawsuit since that “plan” conflicted with the majority’s five-year “plan.” I point this out merely to remind the majority that when it meddles in the business of other branches of government, the process of government is disrupted, not aided.
Aside from all this, the appellant has made one point that I feel should be emphasized for posterity. This court should not be bound in taxpayers’ lawsuits and test cases to the often self serving actions of litigants or lawyers. I think that is what happened originally in this case. Some of the parties, none of whom represented the parties who would suffer prejudice, agreed that it would be well if fifteen counties reappraised their property each year for five years. The majority blindly accepted that agreement, totally ignoring the rights of those unrepresented. It did not have to do so. In two cases we have made it plain that counsel in such test cases or cases affecting large segments of the public cannot through ignorance or design limit this court’s authority. Pafford v. Hall, 217 Ark. 734 , 233 S.W. 2d 72 (1950); Parker v. Laws, 249 Ark. 632 , 460 S.W. 2d 337 (1970).