James M. Walsh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Richard McClean Patricia Patterman, 836 F.2d 1152 (8th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
James M. Walsh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Richard McClean Patricia Patterman, 836 F.2d 1152 (8th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Savage v. Scales (dcd, 2004-03-16)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" Savage v. Scales
D.D.C. · 2004 · signal: see · confidence high
See Walsh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 836 F.2d 1152, 1153 (8th Cir.1988) (holding *137 that employer did not have to determine “the constitutionality of a writ of garnishment ... before complying with its terms.”)- In fact, if they had failed to garnish plaintiffs wages as set forth in the statute, the District of Columbia defendants themselves could be held liable for the amount owed by plaintiff.
cited Cited "see" Opinion No.
Ark. Att'y Gen. · 1997 · signal: accord · confidence high
Accord Walsh v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 836 F.2d 1152 (8th Cir. 1988), citing Davis v. Paschall, 640 F. Supp. 198 (E.D.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
James M. WALSH, Appellant,
v.
WAL-MART STORES, INC., Appellee. Richard McClean; Patricia Patterman
87-1728.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Jan 21, 1988.
836 F.2d 1152
1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 539
1988 WL 2779
Michael Yarbrough, Springdale, Ark., for appellant., Rhonda J. Parish, Bentonville, Ark., for appellee.
McMillian, Fagg, Bowman.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

James Walsh appeals from the District Court’s [1] order dismissing his complaint against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We affirm.

Walsh, employed by Wal-Mart in Arkansas, sought judgment in the amount of wages withheld by Wal-Mart pursuant to a writ of garnishment entered in a Colorado state court and enforced under the Arkansas Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act, Ark.Stat.Ann. §§ 34-2401 to -2442 (Supp.1985). Walsh alleged that the writ was facially invalid and that he did not receive notice of his rights, [2] and that Wal-Mart knew that this rendered the garnishment invalid.

The District Court correctly concluded that the constitutionality of a writ of garnishment is not something which an employer-garnishee must determine before complying with its terms. Arkansas statutory law, 1987 Ark. Acts 523, places the responsibility upon the judgment creditor, not the garnishee, to insure that the judgment debtor receives notice of his rights as required by Davis v. Paschall, 640 F.Supp. 198 (E.D.Ark.1986). An employer presented with a court order and writ of garnishment is required to comply with that order and garnish its employee’s wages; failure to garnish may render the employer-garnishee liable to the judgment creditor. See Bray v. Ed Willey & Son, 239 Ark. 855, 856, 395 S.W.2d 342, 343 (1965); Harris v. Harris, 201 Ark. 684, 687, 146 S.W.2d 539, 540-41 (1941). Finally, foreign child-support judgments and accompanying writs of garnishment are recognized and enforced[*1154] by Arkansas courts under the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act, Ark. Stat.Ann. §§ 29-801 to -818 (1979 & Supp. 1985), and the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act.

Accordingly, we affirm the order of the District Court.

1

. The Honorable H. Franklin Waters, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.

2

. In Davis v. Paschall, 640 F.Supp. 198 (E.D.Ark.1986), Arkansas’s postjudgment garnishment procedures, which fail to provide notice to judgment debtors of their rights to claim state and federal exemptions and to a prompt hearing, were declared unconstitutional.