suit bar in Arkansas

2008Although CHIP's first point on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in denying CHIP's objection to the settlement, the critical issue in this case is whether the made-whole doctrine applies to claims made under section 23-79-510; therefore, that is where we begin our analysis. *702 In Ryder v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 371 Ark. 508 , 268 S.W.3d 298 (2007), this court discussed the made-whole doctrine and the right to subrogation.

2008Although CHIP's first point on appeal is whether the circuit court erred in denying CHIP's objection to the settlement, the critical issue in this case is whether the made-whole doctrine applies to claims made under section 23-79-510; therefore, that is where we begin our analysis. *702 In Ryder v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., 371 Ark. 508 , 268 S.W.3d 298 (2007), this court discussed the made-whole doctrine and the right to subrogation.

2004Co., 100 F.Supp.2d 934 (E.D.Ark.2000), the federal district court held that the statutory presumption did apply to such a suit and that the presumption extended to both the driver of the other vehicle and the vehicle itself.

1986The appellant, quite understandably, argues that the recent case of Carter v. Bush, 283 Ark. 16 , 669 S.W.2d 902 , substituted opinion, 677 S.W.2d 837 (1984), states that the quoted statute does not provide immunity for officers and employees of the state.

1986The appellant, quite understandably, argues that the recent case of Carter v. Bush, 283 Ark. 16 , 669 S.W.2d 902 , substituted opinion, 677 S.W.2d 837 (1984), states that the quoted statute does not provide immunity for officers and employees of the state.

1973See Arkansas Bar Association v. Union National Bank, supra; Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Association of Arkansas, 230 Ark. 494 , 326 S.W. 2d 900 .

1973The writ is denied. 1 But see, The State Bar of Texas v. Belli, 382 S.W. 2d 475 (Tex. 1964), where it was held that injunctive relief would not be granted at the suit of the state bar against an individual nonresident attorney who was not then participating or offering to participate in the trial of a case in the forum state. 2 But see, W.

1973See Arkansas Bar Association v. Union National Bank, supra; Beach Abstract & Guaranty Co. v. Bar Association of Arkansas, 230 Ark. 494 , 326 S.W. 2d 900 .

1950Hatch v. Scott, Adm’x, 210 Ark. 665 , 197 S. W. 2d 559 , When the facts stated in the complaint are considered, together with all reasonable inferences to be deduced therefrom, we conclude that a cause of action was stated, and that the trial court erred in sustaining the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

1950Hatch v. Scott, Adm’x, 210 Ark. 665 , 197 S. W. 2d 559 , When the facts stated in the complaint are considered, together with all reasonable inferences to be deduced therefrom, we conclude that a cause of action was stated, and that the trial court erred in sustaining the motion for judgment on the pleadings.

1945We mention this to clearly distinguish the holding in the case at bar from the holding in Jensen v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co., infra, p. 262, 190 S. W. 2d 5 (case No. 7727), in which an opinion is delivered this day.

1933It was ruled in the case of Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578 , 1 S. Ct. 484 , that the collateral effect of a judgment is not the test of' jurisdiction, but that the amount involved in the suit is the test.

1933It was ruled in the case of Elgin v. Marshall, 106 U. S. 578 , 1 S. Ct. 484 , that the collateral effect of a judgment is not the test of' jurisdiction, but that the amount involved in the suit is the test.

1933The same jurisdictional test was applied in the cases of the New England Mortgage Security Company v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123 , 12 S. Ct. 815 , and the Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Wright, 276 U. S. 602 , 48 S. Ct. 323 .

1933The same jurisdictional test was applied in the cases of the New England Mortgage Security Company v. Gay, 145 U. S. 123 , 12 S. Ct. 815 , and the Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Wright, 276 U. S. 602 , 48 S. Ct. 323 .

1919The time has been changed in the statute of nonclaim from two years to one year since the decree in Walker, Ad. v. Byers, supra, so under the statute as it now Stands, a suit with claim produced and properly authenticated must be brought within one year after the grant of letters.

1916In the recent ease ¡of Leathem v. Jackson County, 122 Ark. 114 , we held that under the general powers granted to the county court under our Constitution and laws, such court became the representative of the county and was empowered to make contracts in behalf of the county in all eases where the ¡local 'Concerns of the county are involved.

1909White v. Smith, 63 Ark. 513 ; Gaines v. Winters, 64 Ark. 609 .

1909White v. Smith, 63 Ark. 513 ; Gaines v. Winters, 64 Ark. 609 .

1905Thus they preserved their lien under section 6062, Kirby’s Digest, supra. Brown v. Buck, 54 Ark. 453 .

1898Counsel therefore contends that the chancellor who rendered the decree in this suit took judicial notice of the decree in the partition suit which he also rendered, and that his decree in the suit at bar declaring a lien on the lands was correct, inasmuch as the personal money judgment in favor of appellant in the partition suit was paid off in land, and he cites, to sustain his contention, Porter v. Hanson, 36 Ark. 591 .