# City of Little Rock v. Cash

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · December 6, 1982 · 277 Ark. 494

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776775

## Case

- **Full name:** CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas v. Ann CASH, T. SMITH, C. S. ROBINSON, Wilson WEBBER, Charles WATSON and G. JOHNSON
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** December 6, 1982
- **Citations:** 277 Ark. 494; 644 S.W.2d 229; 1982 Ark. LEXIS 1591
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Purtle
- **Judges:** Dudley, Adkisson, Purtle, Hays
- **Cited by:** 96 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled in part, on other grounds by T&T Chemical, Inc. v. Priest, 351 Ark. 537 (2003).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776775

## Opinion text

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.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9776775. Public record. Not legal advice.