# Milberg, Weiss, Bershad, Hynes, & Lerach, LLP v. State

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 12, 2000 · 342 Ark. 303

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677980

## Case

- **Full name:** MILBERG, WEISS, BERSHAD, HYNES, and LERACH, LLP; Niblock Law Firm; And Law Offices of Steven E. Cauley, P.A. v. STATE of Arkansas; Phillip Morris, Inc.; R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corporation, Individually and as Successor by Merger to American Tobacco Company; And Lorillard Tobacco Company
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** October 12, 2000
- **Citations:** 342 Ark. 303; 28 S.W.3d 842; 2000 Ark. LEXIS 472
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brown
- **Judges:** Donald L. Corbin
- **Cited by:** 22 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/9677980

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that the trial court properly denied a motion to intervene when the motion would have caused the other members of the class to be prejudiced by the postponement of a settlement
- explaining that the Arkansas Constitution preserves sovereign immunity absent waiver
- explaining the interrelation between a fraudulent inducement claim and the validity of a consent decree

## Opinion text

Robert L. Brown, Justice, concurring. I agree with the result reached in this case. However, on the issues of intervention, I would affirm solely for the reason that the law firms did not have a recognized interest in the subject matter of the primary litigation and settlement. That, of course, is one of the criteria for intervention as a matter of right. Matson, Inc. v. Lamb & Assocs. Packaging, Inc., 328 Ark. 705 , 947 S.W.2d 324 (1997). Accordingly, I would not reach the issue of timeliness of the intervention and consider that discussion in the opinion to be obiter dictum.
Smith, J„ joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9677980. Public record. Not legal advice.