Harper v. Nash Implement Co.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Harper v. Nash Implement Co.

662 S.W.2d 811, 281 Ark. 161, 1984 Ark. LEXIS 1506

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedJanuary 9, 1984

Docket83-226

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 662 S.W.2d 811 (Harper v. Nash Implement Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Harper v. Nash Implement Co., 662 S.W.2d 811, 281 Ark. 161, 1984 Ark. LEXIS 1506 (Ark. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.

On December 13, 1982, this Court reversed and remanded this case for retrial holding that the Faulkner County Circuit Court erred in prohibiting appellants from producing evidence as to the commercial reasonableness of the property sale under the Uniform Commercial Code. We also held that the trial court was correct in striking appellants’ counterclaim pursuant to Rule 37, ARCP, because of the failure of appellants to answer interrogatories. Harper v. Wheatley, 278 Ark. 27, 643 S.W.2d 537 (1982). The sole issue on this second appeal is whether the trial court, on remand, correctly refused to permit additional pleadings on appellants’ counterclaim. The trial court applied the doctrine of “law of the case” and refused to allow additional pleadings. On appeal we affirm.

The principles of law determined and announced in the former appeal are binding and must stand as the law of the case. Ferguson v. Green, 266 Ark. 556, 587 S.W.2d 18 (1979); St. Louis S.W. Railway Co. v. Jackson, 246 Ark. 268, 438 S. W.2d 41 (1969). The decision of the trial court pursuant to Rule 37, ARCP, was approved by this Court in the first appeal. On retrial the trial court correctly applied the doctrine of “law of the case” in applying the law set out in this Court’s opinion in the original appeal. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court was correct in refusing to grant a trial de novo on all of the issues.

Hollingsworth, J., not participating.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.

On December 13, 1982, this Court reversed and remanded this case for retrial holding that the Faulkner County Circuit Court erred in prohibiting appellants from producing evidence as to the commercial reasonableness of the property sale under the Uniform Commercial Code. We also held that the trial court was correct in striking appellants’ counterclaim pursuant to Rule 37, ARCP, because of the failure of appellants to answer interrogatories. Harper v. Wheatley, 278 Ark. 27, 643 S.W.2d 537 (1982). The sole issue on this second appeal is whether the trial court, on remand, correctly refused to permit additional pleadings on appellants’ counterclaim. The trial court applied the doctrine of “law of the case” and refused to allow additional pleadings. On appeal we affirm.

The principles of law determined and announced in the former appeal are binding and must stand as the law of the case. Ferguson v. Green, 266 Ark. 556, 587 S.W.2d 18 (1979); St. Louis S.W. Railway Co. v. Jackson, 246 Ark. 268, 438 S. W.2d 41 (1969). The decision of the trial court pursuant to Rule 37, ARCP, was approved by this Court in the first appeal. On retrial the trial court correctly applied the doctrine of “law of the case” in applying the law set out in this Court’s opinion in the original appeal. Accordingly, we conclude the trial court was correct in refusing to grant a trial de novo on all of the issues.

Hollingsworth, J., not participating.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

662 S.W.2d 811, 281 Ark. 161, 1984 Ark. LEXIS 1506, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/harper-v-nash-implement-co-ark-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack