Justia Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Appellants and Appellees owned property on two sides of Hurricane Creek. Appellants alleged that Appellees and past owners of the property placed fill material in the floodway and floodplain of Hurricane Creek and that, since that time, Appellants had experienced an increased frequency and extent of flooding on their property. The parties subsequently reported to the trial court that they had reached a settlement. However, the proposed settlement contained a provision releasing claims Appellants “may have in the future.” Appellants disputed the scope of the release. The circuit court granted Appellee’s motion to enforce settlement agreement, concluding that the agreement and release encompassed the terms actually agreed on by the parties. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the trial court’s grant of Appellee’s motion to enforce settlement was in error where there was no agreement between the parties as to the scope of the release. View "Billingsley v. Benton NWA Props., LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, a car dealership and related individuals, had an oral agreement that Defendant would use, free of charge, an empty bay at the site of its car dealership for its nonprofit and youth-outreach activities. Defendant put approximately $100,000 of improvements into the bay. One year later, Plaintiffs asked Defendant to sign a lease and to begin paying rent and utilities. When Defendant refused, Plaintiffs brought an action alleging unlawful detainer and seeking a writ of possession, damages, costs and attorney’s fees. Defendant filed a counterclaim and third-party complaint. The circuit court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, issued a writ of possession, and dismissed all of Defendant’s counterclaims and third-party claims. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding that the circuit court (1) properly granted summary judgment on the issue of unlawful detainer; (2) erred in granting summary judgment on Defendant’s counterclaims of promissory estoppel and detrimental reliance; and (3) did not abuse its discretion in denying Plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees. View "Anderson's Taekwondo Ctr. Camp Positive, Inc. v. Landers Auto Group No. 1, Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant sued Southern Farm Bureau Casualty Insurance Company (SFB) for breach of contract. SFB answered, alleging that Appellant’s claims were spurious and were made for an improper purpose. The circuit court granted summary judgment to SFB, concluding that Appellant had filed a frivolous claim against SFB without proper and reasonable investigation and imposed sanctions in the form of awarding attorney’s fees to SFB. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Appellant was not entitled to an award of attorney’s fees because he did not prevail on the issue of his entitlement to the payment of a sum he sought; and (2) because SFB failed to comply with the requirements of Ark. R. Civ. P. 11 in seeking Rule 11 sanctions, the circuit court erred in imposing Rule 11 sanctions. View "Swindle v. State" on Justia Law

Entergy Arkansas, Inc. and Entergy Operations, Inc. (collectively, “Entergy”) entered into an agreement with Siemens Energy, Inc. (“Siemens”) under which Siemens was to provide Entergy with services at three nuclear facilities. The agreement included an arbitration provision. Pursuant to the agreement, Entergy and Siemens agreed that Siemens would replace a large component of a generator at Entergy’s Arkansas Nuclear One (“ANO”) facility. Siemens had a separate, long-term agreement with Bigge Crane and Rigging Co. and Claus Frederiksen (collectively, “Bigge”) under which Bigge would prove crane services for Siemens at ANO. After a crane built and operated by Bigge collapsed at ANO, killing one person, injuring ten others, and causing significant damages to ANO, Entergy filed suit against Bigge and others, alleging several tort claims. Bigge moved to compel arbitration of Entergy’s claims against Bigge as a purported third-party beneficiary of the agreement between Entergy and Siemens. The circuit court denied Bigge’s motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in concluding (1) that, under the facts of this case, issues of arbitrability were matters for judicial determination; and (2) that Bigge could not invoke arbitration. View "Bigge Crane & Rigging Co. v. Entergy Ark. Inc." on Justia Law

In 2009, Central Arkansas Water, which owns and operates Lake Maumelle as a public water supply, authorized the collection of a “watershed fee” imposed on wholesale customers, including Appellants. That same year, Pulaski County and Central Arkansas Water (collectively, Appellees) entered into a watershed protection agreement. Appellants filed suit on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated taxpayers, arguing that the watershed fee constituted an illegal exaction and that the the watershed protection agreement necessitated Central Arkansas Water to expend public funds illegally. The circuit court entered summary judgment for Appellees, concluding that the agreement was a proper contract for administrative services. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court correctly ruled that the watershed protection agreement was a valid agreement under Arkansas law. View "Sullins v. Cent. Ark. Water" on Justia Law

Appellees entered into a contract for Hurt-Hoover Investments, LLC to purchase Appellees’ interest in a limited liability company. Hurt-Hoover executed individual promissory notes to each appellee for payment of the balance in thirty-six monthly installments. Appellees later filed suit against Hurt-Hoover in Cleburne County Circuit Court, alleging that Hurt-Hoover had wholly failed to pay installments due under the promissory notes. Hurt-Hoover counterclaimed alleging, inter alia, breach of contract. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellees on their complaint and against Hurt-Hoover on its counterclaim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circuit court did not err in ruling that venue was proper in Cleburne County; and (2) the circuit court did not err by not refusing to allow the testimony of the attorney who drafted the agreement. View "Hurt-Hoover Invs. LLC v. Fulmer" on Justia Law

This lawsuit, which returned to the Supreme Court for a third time, stemmed from the contracts and payments for services in delivering produce. The parties included Hotfoot Logistics, LLC (Hotfoot), a freight property broker with its principal place of business in Little Rock, Arkansas; Western Brokerage, a property broker that that is based in Phoenix, Arizona; Shipping Point Marketing, Inc. (SPM), a shipping company based in Phoenix, Arizona; and Davis Fishgold, the president of SPM, and Louis Fishgold, the president of Western Brokerage. Hotfoot brought an action in an Arkansas state court against SPM, Western Brokerage, and the Fishgolds. After the Supreme Court’s remand in Hotfoot II, the circuit court granted summary judgment for SPM and the Fishgolds based on lack of personal jurisdiction. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court erred in granting SPM’s motion for summary judgment on personal jurisdiction, as the contacts between Hotfoot and the parties were sufficient to warrant personal jurisdiction over the defendants, and the defendants manifestly availed themselves of the privilege of conduct business in Arkansas. View "Hotfoot Logistics, LLC v. Shipping Point Mktg., Inc." on Justia Law

Appellant entered into a contract with Appellee specifying that Appellee would provide Appellant with software development services. Appellant later terminated the parties’ contract based on its alleged belief that three separate provisions of the parties’ agreement entitled it to terminate the contract. Appellee filed this breach-of-contract action against Appellant. Appellant counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference with contractual relationship or business expectancy. A jury returned a verdict in favor of Appellee and awarded $150,000 in compensatory damages. Appellant appealed the judgment and Appellee cross-appealed from the circuit court’s postjudgment denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. The Supreme Court affirmed on appeal and reversed and on cross-appeal, holding (1) substantial evidence supported the jury’s breach-of-contract verdict; and (2) because the circuit court did not adequately explain its denial of attorneys’ fees, the case must be remanded for the limited purpose of making findings to allow for appellate review of the fee decision. View "Ark. Realtors Ass'n v. Real Forms LLC" on Justia Law

Appellee, Peter Rosenow, brought a class-action complaint individually and on behalf of similarly situated persons against Appellants, Alltel Corporation and Alltel Communications, Inc. (collectively, Alltel), alleging violations of the Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment arising from Alltel’s imposition of an early termination fee on its cellular-phone customers. Alltel filed a motion seeking to compel arbitration based on an arbitration clause contained in its “Terms and Conditions.” The circuit court denied the motion, concluding that Alltel’s arbitration provision lacked mutuality. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the circuit court did not err in finding that a lack of mutuality rendered the instant arbitration agreement invalid.View "Alltel Corp. v. Rosenow" on Justia Law

Appellants filed a class action complaint alleging that the circuit court clerk falsely and fraudulently notarized oil-and-gas leases outside the presence of the landowners. The complaint requested an injunction and other relief. After a hearing, the circuit court sua sponte dismissed the case for lack of damages. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the circuit court improperly dismissed Appellants’ complaint, as the sua sponte dismissal foreclosed the possibility that Appellants might have been able to submit additional evidence indicating that there remained a genuine issue of material fact, i.e., that they had suffered damages. View "Lipsey v. Giles" on Justia Law