Recent Developments - Arkansas Law Review

(16) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS.DOC 4/23/2010 3:08:33 PM
452 ARKANSAS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 63:449
decision of the trial court.
Chief Justice Hannah and Justices Danielson and Wills
dissented, with Chief Justice Hannah and Justice Wills both
writing opinions in which all three dissenters joined. Chief
Justice Hannah wrote to note that when the Tuckers took a
voluntary nonsuit, that cause of action was terminated (citing
Austin v. Austin, 241 Ark. 634, 638, 409 S.W.2d 833, 835-36
(1966)). As a result the Tucker’s amended complaint was a
“nullity.” Chief Justice Hannah disagreed with the majority’s
decision to “ignore” this “procedural bar” and worried about
what the majority’s decision might mean for the finality of
judgments.
Justice Wills wrote to declare that prior precedent required
them to affirm the trial court. (citing West v. Searle & Co., 305
Ark. 33, 36-37, 806 S.W.2d 608, 610-11 (1991). She also wrote
to state her opinion that the Hill-Rom case, upon which the
majority relied, was “outside the parameters of our existing case
law.” (citing Hill-Rom, 65 Ark. App. at 74, 984 S.W.2d at 836)).
Ultimately, Justice Wills believed that the majority had stretched
the doctrine of liberal interpretation of pleadings too far in this
case.