Opinion

City of Little Rock v. Cash

  • 277 Ark. 494
  • 644 S.W.2d 229
  • 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1591
Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Filed
Dec 6, 1982
Status
Published
Author
Purtle
On the bench
Dudley, Adkisson, Purtle, Hays
Cited by
96 cases

Overruled in part, on other grounds by T&T Chemical, Inc. v. Priest, 351 Ark. 537 (2003)

both generally discussing this doctrine

How later courts described this case

  • both generally discussing this doctrine

Written by the judges who cited it.

Later courts went against this

  • Overruled in part, on other grounds by T&T Chemical, Inc. v. Priest, 351 Ark. 537 (2003)

    City of Little Rock v. Cash, 277 Ark. 494, 644 S.W.2d 229 (1982), overruled on other grounds by T & T Chemical, Inc. v. Priest, 351 Ark. 537, 95 S.W.3d 750 (2003).
    Supreme Court of ArkansasJan 23, 20032 citing opinionsother groundsin partRead it

The opinion

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I would grant the petition for rehearing in the matter of the appellant’s attorney fee. The attorney had absolutely no conflict of interest. The City of Little Rock obviously broke its word of honor. The City further persuaded a majority of this court to deny the attorney any compensation whatsoever for his work, which action by the City smacks of pure spite and retaliation. If it were the intent of the majority to chill and discourage attorneys from undertaking class actions against a governmental unit then the opinion is eminently successful. We should right the wrong which we committed in the initial opinion. I would grant the rehearing.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.