Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
5 Arkansas opinions name it 1 courts 1994–1998 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Arkansas courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Crockett & Brown, PA v. Wilsongreen2 sentences1998See Crockett & Brown, P.A. v. Wilson, 321 Ark. 150 , 901 S.W.2d 826 (1995) (a Rule 11 motion raises a collateral and independent claim, not a matter integral to the merits of the action); Spring Creek Living Ctr. v. Sarrett, 318 Ark. 173 , 883 S.W.2d 820 (1994); Sunbelt Exploration Co. v. Stephens Prod. 1998See Crockett & Brown, P.A. v. Wilson, 321 Ark. 150 , 901 S.W.2d 826 (1995) (a Rule 11 motion raises a collateral and independent claim, not a matter integral to the merits of the action); Spring Creek Living Ctr. v. Sarrett, 318 Ark. 173 , 883 S.W.2d 820 (1994); Sunbelt Exploration Co. v. Stephens Prod. | 1 | 1 |
Morris Obin v. District No. 9 of the International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers Anheuser-Busch, Inc.green2 sentences1995See White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445 , 102 S.Ct. 1162 , 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982) (holding the ten-day limit for a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment was not *198 applicable to the petitioner's motion, as the prevailing party, for an attorney's fee under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , where the fee motion was filed four and one-half months after entry of a final judgment for the petitioner on the underlying action); accord, Obin v. District No. 9 of the Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 651 F.2d 574 (8th 1995See White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (holding the ten-day limit for a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment was not applicable to the petitioner’s motion, as the prevailing party, for an attorney’s fee under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , where the fee motion was filed four and one-half months after entry of a final judgment for the petitioner on the underlying action); accord, Obin v. District No. 9 of the Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 651 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1981) (holding a post-judgment mo | 1 | 1 |
White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Securitygreen2 sentences1995See White v. New Hampshire Dep't of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445 , 102 S.Ct. 1162 , 71 L.Ed.2d 325 (1982) (holding the ten-day limit for a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment was not *198 applicable to the petitioner's motion, as the prevailing party, for an attorney's fee under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , where the fee motion was filed four and one-half months after entry of a final judgment for the petitioner on the underlying action); accord, Obin v. District No. 9 of the Int'l Ass'n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 651 F.2d 574 (8th 1995See White v. New Hampshire Dep’t of Employment Sec., 455 U.S. 445 (1982) (holding the ten-day limit for a Rule 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment was not applicable to the petitioner’s motion, as the prevailing party, for an attorney’s fee under the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. § 1988 , where the fee motion was filed four and one-half months after entry of a final judgment for the petitioner on the underlying action); accord, Obin v. District No. 9 of the Int’l Ass’n of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, 651 F.2d 574 (8th Cir. 1981) (holding a post-judgment mo | 1 | 1 |
Pledger v. Bosnickgreen2 sentences1995“Collateral action,” this court has stated, is “action that does not make any direct step toward final disposition of the merits of a case, will not be merged in the final judgment, is not an ingredient of the cause of action, and does not require consideration with the main cause of action.” Pledger v. Bosnick, 306 Ark. 45, 50 , 811 S.W.2d 286, 290 (1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3034 (1993). 1995“Collateral action,” this court has stated, is “action that does not make any direct step toward final disposition of the merits of a case, will not be merged in the final judgment, is not an ingredient of the cause of action, and does not require consideration with the main cause of action.” Pledger v. Bosnick, 306 Ark. 45, 50 , 811 S.W.2d 286, 290 (1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3034 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Arkansas. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Spring Creek Living Center Ltd. Partnership v. Sarrett
green
2 sentences1998See Crockett & Brown, P.A. v. Wilson, 321 Ark. 150 , 901 S.W.2d 826 (1995) (a Rule 11 motion raises a collateral and independent claim, not a matter integral to the merits of the action); Spring Creek Living Ctr. v. Sarrett, 318 Ark. 173 , 883 S.W.2d 820 (1994); Sunbelt Exploration Co. v. Stephens Prod. 1998See Crockett & Brown, P.A. v. Wilson, 321 Ark. 150 , 901 S.W.2d 826 (1995) (a Rule 11 motion raises a collateral and independent claim, not a matter integral to the merits of the action); Spring Creek Living Ctr. v. Sarrett, 318 Ark. 173 , 883 S.W.2d 820 (1994); Sunbelt Exploration Co. v. Stephens Prod. | 3 | 1995–1998 |
Sunbelt Exploration Co. v. Stephens Production Co.
green
2 sentences1998Co., 320 Ark. 298 , 896 S.W.2d 867 (1995) (an award of attorney’s fees is collateral). 1998Co., 320 Ark. 298 , 896 S.W.2d 867 (1995) (an award of attorney’s fees is collateral). | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Pledger v. Bosnick
green
2 sentences1995"Collateral action," this court has stated, is "action that does not make any direct step toward final disposition of the merits of a case, will not be merged in the final judgment, is not an ingredient of the cause of action, and does not require consideration with the main cause of action." Pledger v. Bosnick, 306 Ark. 45, 50 , 811 S.W.2d 286, 290 (1991), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 3034 , 125 L.Ed.2d 721 (1993). 1995“Collateral action,” this court has stated, is “action that does not make any direct step toward final disposition of the merits of a case, will not be merged in the final judgment, is not an ingredient of the cause of action, and does not require consideration with the main cause of action.” Pledger v. Bosnick, 306 Ark. 45, 50 , 811 S.W.2d 286, 290 (1991), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 3034 (1993). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.
red
2 sentences1994In reaching this decision, the Court concluded that a Rule 11 motion “raises a collateral and independent claim, not a matter integral to the merits of the action.” See also Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 (1990). 1994In reaching this decision, the Court concluded that a Rule 11 motion “raises a collateral and independent claim, not a matter integral to the merits of the action.” See also Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384 , 110 S.Ct. 2447 (1990). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.