# Hall v. Staha

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · September 27, 1993 · 314 Ark. 71

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676644

## Case

- **Full name:** Billy v. HALL, Albert P. Dunagin, John R. Meade, and Hall Enterprises, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation v. Monte J. STAHA; Jimmy H. Hatfield; Med-Max Associates Limited Partnership; MJS, Inc.; RNI, Inc.; And Dunhall Pharmaceuticals, Inc, an Arkansas Corporation
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 27, 1993
- **Citations:** 314 Ark. 71; 858 S.W.2d 672
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** On rehearing
- **Judges:** James R. Van Dover
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9676644

## Opinion text

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING SEPTEMBER 27, 1993
Per Curiam. In their petition for rehearing, appellants contend that they requested this court to set Staha’s and Hatfield’s salaries for the years 1987-1991, but the court failed to determine these men’s compensation for 1991. Having used testimony and evidence of the appellees’ expert witness to set such salaries, we point out that the year 1991 was not mentioned. As a consequence, any setting of Staha’s and Hatfield’s salaries would have to be addressed by the parties and the trial court on remand. Appellants’ and appellees’ petitions for rehearing are otherwise denied.
Corbin and Brown, JJ., not participating.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9676644. Public record. Not legal advice.