Bell v. McManus, 87-214
| Decision Date | 29 February 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-214,87-214 |
| Citation | 745 S.W.2d 140,294 Ark. 275 |
| Parties | Melvyn and Darlene BELL, Appellants, v. Rory McMANUS, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Tripper Chronkhite, Little Rock, for appellants.
Dale Price, Little Rock, for appellee.
[294 Ark. 278-A] SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION UPON DENIAL OF REHEARING
[294 Ark. 278-B] PURTLE, Justice.
In their petition for rehearing the appellants state that this court misstated their third argument for reversal when we stated: "We do not agree with appellants' assertion in their third argument that the trial court set aside the jury verdict because there was no substantial evidence relating to compensatory or nominal damages." They are right. The third argument was: "The trial court erred in holding that there was no substantial evidence of compensatory or nominal damages to submit to the jury." Having stated their argument correctly, we refuse to grant a rehearing because there was no substantial evidence that required the giving of the appellants' requested instruction on damages.
The A.M.I. 2201 instruction offered by the appellants contained the following elements of damages:
(1) The fair market value of their personal property immediately before the occurrence;
(2) Any mental anguish or sense of outrage experienced by them in the past or reasonably certain to be experienced by them in the past or reasonably certain to be experienced in the future;
(3) The infringement of their right to have their home secure and free from intruders;
(4) The infringement of their right to have possession of their personal property, regardless of its value.
The court amended this instruction by submitting only one element to the jury, as follows:
Any mental anguish experienced by her in the past.
The proffered elements were either incorrect statements of the law or were not supported by substantial evidence.
Petition denied.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Paulino v. QHG of Springdale, Inc.
...no basis for punitive relief. Bell v. McManus, 294 Ark. 275, 277, 742 S.W.2d 559, 560,opinion supplemented on denial of reh'g,294 Ark. 275, 745 S.W.2d 140 (1988) (“In the absence of an award for damages for the underlying cause of action, punitive damages are improper.”). For all of these r......
-
Hudson v. Cook
...damages were suffered. Bell v. McManus, 294 Ark. 275, 742 S.W.2d 559, opinion supplemented on denial of reh'g, 294 Ark. 275, 278-A, 745 S.W.2d 140 (1988). Hudson, Jr. contends that appellee failed to offer sufficient proof to sustain the award of compensatory damages as discussed under poin......
-
Davis v. Tri-State Mack Distributors, Inc., TRI-STATE
...damages. See Bell v. McManus, 294 Ark. 275, 277-78, 742 S.W.2d 559, 560, modified on denial of reh., 294 Ark. 275, 278-B, 745 S.W.2d 140, 141 (1988). As to the Title VII claims, the district court found in favor of Davis. The court noted that the evidence was "sharply divergent," but found ......
- Credit General Ins. Co. v. Atlas Asphalt, Inc., 90-273