Oren Harris

The case involved a former quality control supervisor at L.T.V. Aerospace and Defense Company who sued after being forced to resign in 1988, alleging sex discrimination, wrongful discharge in violation of public policy, and tort claims for outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress stemming from an incident where she recorded estimated inspection data in a log book after missed rocket inspections. The court had previously dismissed her age discrimination and defamation claims. The court ruled for the defendant on all remaining claims, determining that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of sex discrimination or show that the stated reason for termination was pretextual, that her conduct did not support a public policy wrongful discharge claim, and that the defendant's actions were professional and did not rise to the level of outrageous conduct required for the tort claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightstorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between the Brogdons, Arkansas homeowners, and Exterior Design, a Louisiana company that performed home improvements on their property under a contract financed by an FHA-insured loan. The Brogdons argued that the contract was void because Exterior Design, as a foreign corporation, failed to register and comply with Arkansas's Wingo Act before doing business in the state. The court determined that the Wingo Act applied since the transaction occurred in Arkansas, rendering the contract, note, and mortgage void ab initio. However, relying on equitable principles to prevent unjust enrichment, the court ordered the Brogdons to pay $13,653.78 to the Resolution Trust Corporation, representing the cost of the improvements minus payments already made. Exterior Design did not participate in the trial and was no longer in existence.

business & regulatoryproperty

Deal v. Spears was a civil action brought by former liquor store employee Sibbie Deal and her romantic partner Calvin Lucas against store owners Newell and Juanita Spears under the federal wiretap statute, 18 U.S.C. § 2520, for secretly recording all incoming and outgoing calls on the shared business phone line over several weeks in 1990. The Spears installed the recorder in their adjacent home after a theft at the store, suspecting an inside job and also seeking to monitor employees' personal calls; the recordings captured intimate conversations between Deal and Lucas that were later disclosed to third parties, including Deal's estranged husband. After a bench trial, the court examined whether the interceptions fell within the consent or business-use exceptions of 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(d) and related precedents, focusing on the absence of employee knowledge, the automatic continuous nature of the taping, and the Spears' additional motives beyond investigating the theft. The court concluded that the recordings violated the statute because they were not limited to legitimate business purposes and involved dissemination that risked tortious harm.

criminal lawlabor & employmentprocedure

This case involved a dispute over whether an employer-provided group health insurance policy covered maternity expenses for the birth of the plaintiff's child. The child was conceived while the plaintiff was employed at Cook Chrysler and premiums were being paid, but born after his employment ended in January 1988 and no further premiums were remitted. The plaintiff argued that the policy language was ambiguous and should be interpreted to provide coverage based on the date of conception. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, holding that the policy was a contract governed by Arkansas law and that its terms unambiguously required ongoing premium payments for coverage to continue. The court found the plaintiff's proposed interpretation unreasonable after reviewing the full policy, including provisions stating that coverage terminates upon failure to pay premiums or termination of employment, subject only to optional COBRA continuation options that were not elected.

healthcarelabor & employment

This case concerned a medical malpractice claim arising from the treatment of Lee Brown at a nursing home operated by the defendants, where the plaintiff, his daughter Essie Brown Lambert, alleged injuries including malnutrition that led to his death. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the plaintiff's pre-suit notice of intent to sue was defective under Arkansas Code Ann. § 16-114-204(a) because it failed to adequately specify injuries and damages and because the plaintiff was not the estate's executrix or administratrix. The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding that the notice sufficiently informed the defendants of the general nature of the claim and its purpose of promoting settlement, and that the plaintiff's status as "next friend" caused no prejudice. The court also granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to reflect her subsequent appointment as special administratrix of the estate, as the amendment added no new facts and justice required allowing her to proceed in that capacity.

healthcareproceduretorts & liability

This case involves a Title VII sex discrimination claim against the Watson Chapel School District, where the plaintiff was denied promotion to Junior High Principal. On remand from the Eighth Circuit, the district court calculated remedies consisting of front pay and back pay to compensate for the discrimination. For front pay, the court awarded the ongoing monthly difference between the plaintiff's salary as Assistant Junior High Principal and that of a Junior High Principal (using the school's pay scale), to continue until she receives the position, because an immediate promotion would displace an incumbent. For back pay, the court awarded $71,242 based on stipulated salary differences from 1983-1990 plus $13,841.03 in 6% prejudgment interest, rejecting offsets for the plaintiff's supplemental bus-driving income or differences in contract length. The core reasoning was that such awards are required to make the plaintiff whole under Title VII, with ambiguities resolved against the employer and strong presumptions favoring back pay absent extraordinary circumstances.

civil rightslabor & employment

The case involved lawsuits by the estates of three Tracor employees killed or injured in an August 1985 fire and explosion at a munitions plant under a Department of Defense contract, seeking damages for wrongful death, funeral and medical expenses, and pain and suffering. The government moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that the survival-statute claims had never been presented to the Defense Department for administrative review as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2675(a), while only wrongful-death claims had been submitted. The court granted the motion, ruling that Arkansas’s wrongful-death statute (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-102) and survival statute (Ark. Code Ann. § 16-62-101(a)) create separate and distinct causes of action that must be presented separately, so the unpresented survival claims for funeral expenses, medical expenses, and pain and suffering could not proceed in federal court.

torts & liabilityprocedurefederal power

This case involved a civil forfeiture action by the United States against real property at Route 2, Box 61-C in Crossett, Arkansas, under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7). The government seized the property after law enforcement discovered that Express Mail packages containing cocaine had been sent to the address, one of which was received by a tenant, with evidence including drug-related letters, money order receipts, and cash found in the claimant's purse and bedroom linking the premises to ongoing drug distribution. The claimant argued she had no involvement, but the court found the property had been used to facilitate narcotics violations. The court held that the government established probable cause for forfeiture and the claimant failed to rebut it, resulting in an order forfeiting the property to the United States as an in rem civil proceeding separate from any criminal charges.

criminal lawproperty

The case involved an employee, Wilson, who after receiving workers' compensation benefits for a workplace leg injury from International Paper Company (IPC), sued the machine manufacturer Beloit and later added IPC as a defendant, alleging that IPC had intentionally destroyed or negligently lost key machine parts needed for his products liability claim. On remand from the Eighth Circuit, the district court considered whether IPC had any duty to preserve the evidence. The court granted summary judgment to IPC, holding that no statutory duty existed under Arkansas law, no duty arose under Arkansas tort principles or common law spoliation claims, and no duty had been assumed by agreement or contract, as the employer-employee relationship alone did not create an obligation to preserve evidence for use against a third party.

torts & liabilitylabor & employment

This case involves a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit by plaintiff Mosier against Ashley County sheriff James Robinson and deputy Rex Harris, alleging that Robinson beat and choked him without provocation while under the influence of alcohol, with Harris failing to intervene, along with related state tort claims. Ashley County, as the real party in the official-capacity claims, moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing tort liability and punitive damages claims against the county under state law and precedent, but denied it as to the § 1983 claims. The court reasoned that evidence of Robinson's repeated performance of duties while intoxicated, known to quorum court members who took no action, could support an inference of a county policy or custom of condoning such conduct under Monell, making the county a proper defendant for those claims.

civil rightstorts & liability

This case was a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act and related federal and state environmental statutes, brought by approximately 106 residents against the City of Green Forest and Tyson Foods, Inc., alleging unlawful wastewater discharges from the city's treatment plant (which received effluent from Tyson's facility) into Dry Creek, along with common-law tort claims for nuisance, riparian rights violations, and damages. After a six-week jury trial, the jury found in favor of the City on all claims but determined that Tyson had committed 43 separate violations of the Clean Water Act and awarded compensatory damages to 40 individual plaintiffs for harm to real property and other losses. The court, giving weight to the jury verdicts and considering EPA civil penalty policies along with factors such as the extent and number of violations, imposed a total civil penalty of $43,000 against Tyson ($1,000 per violation). Jurisdiction was based on the Clean Water Act's citizen-suit provisions and federal question authority, with the court entering judgment accordingly after incorporating findings under Rule 52.

environmenttorts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

The case involved plaintiffs who built broiler houses using products from Sto-Cote and CertainTeed, alleging that the products deteriorated upon contact, discovered in 1986. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing the three-year statute of limitations under Arkansas Products Liability Act had run since the houses were built in 1983. The court denied the motions, reasoning that the limitations period begins when the damage manifests and its nature is revealed to the plaintiffs, not at the time of installation or manufacture.

torts & liabilityprocedure

This case involved a former bank president who sought coverage under a directors and officers liability insurance policy for legal fees incurred defending against federal criminal charges for violations of the Currency Transaction Reporting Act, of which he was ultimately acquitted. The policy was in effect until July 1985, but the indictment was returned in August 1986 after a grand jury subpoena and questioning had occurred earlier. The court granted summary judgment to the insurers, holding that no covered "claim" arose until the indictment itself, which occurred after the policy expired. The court reasoned that under the policy language and Arkansas contract law, a claim requires a cause of action, which in criminal proceedings is created by the return of an indictment rather than by an investigation or subpoena, and that the policy explicitly requires the claim to be made during the policy period.

business & regulatorycriminal lawprocedure

The plaintiff, a longtime female teacher in the Watson Chapel School District, sued under Title VII alleging sex discrimination in the district's failure to promote her to any of eight administrative vacancies from 1983 to 1988. The district court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework, found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of discrimination, that the defendants had articulated nondiscriminatory reasons for the decisions, but that those reasons were pretextual. The court concluded that sex was a factor in the employment decisions and directed the school board to appoint the plaintiff to the next available secondary administrative position, while declining to award monetary damages. The opinion notes the district's history of having no female administrators until after the suit was filed and emphasizes that the plaintiff met all qualifications for the positions.

civil rightslabor & employment

In Nunes v. Bishop Aviation, Inc., plaintiff Brendon Nunes sued defendants for design patent and trademark infringement involving aircraft instrument-style clocks and thermometers. A jury found some of defendants' products infringed on Nunes's design patents, awarding $5,600, but determined the infringement was not willful and ruled against Nunes on trademark claims and other models. Nunes then moved for attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285, arguing the case was exceptional due to defendants' alleged bad faith defenses and counterclaims, including antitrust violations. The court denied the motion, reasoning that defendants had presented evidence supporting their defenses, prevailed on several issues, complied with court orders, and showed no misconduct or bad faith warranting an exceptional case finding.

business & regulatory

Plaintiff Brendon Nunes sued Bishop Aviation Inc. and Cecil Bishop for design patent and trademark infringement involving clocks and thermometers designed to resemble aircraft instruments. A jury found that some of the defendants' products infringed two of Nunes's design patents and awarded $5,600 in damages, but determined that the infringement was not willful and that there was no infringement of Nunes's trademark or product configuration. Nunes moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the willful infringement issue, citing evidence such as the defendants' awareness of his products and continued production after the lawsuit. The court denied the motion, reasoning that the jury's verdict was supported by evidence that the defendants lacked actual notice of the patents before production and that they complied with a preliminary injunction.

business & regulatoryprocedure

The case involved a plaintiff's claims of sex discrimination in employment against defendants, alleging denial of an opportunity to apply for an assistant principal position since 1982 and a subsequent demotion, with relief sought under the Fourteenth Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 2000e (Title VII). The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and/or for partial summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff's EEOC charge was not filed within the 180-day statutory deadline under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-5(e), as the key incidents occurred in 1982 and March 1984 while the original charge was filed in September 1984. It rejected arguments for a continuing violation or relation back of an amended charge, noting that the complaints reflected only the ongoing effects of past actions rather than present violations, and the EEOC had also deemed the filing untimely. The court later denied the plaintiff's motion for relief from the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) due to insufficient evidence of newly discovered facts, mistake, or other exceptional circumstances warranting relief.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case Lowe v. United States concerns the damages phase of claims arising from a March 1976 explosion at a facility, in which the United States was found liable, involving personal injuries and wrongful deaths of multiple plaintiffs. Some plaintiffs reached stipulations with the government on damage amounts, while the court separately evaluated remaining claims for compensatory damages, pain and suffering, mental anguish, loss of services, and loss of consortium under Arkansas law. For the Lowe estate, the court considered evidence of Thelma Lowe's fractures, back injuries, and pre-existing osteoporosis aggravated by the accident, noting her later unrelated death from cancer. In wrongful death cases such as Mitchell, the court found instantaneous death with no conscious pain and suffering based on medical records and chaotic post-explosion conditions at the hospital, leading to corresponding awards or denials.

torts & liabilityprocedure

The case involved a savings and loan association that purchased a package of mortgage loans from E.F. Hutton Mortgage Corporation for over $2 million under a contract stating the loans were sold 'as is' with no additional representations or warranties. After the sale, the plaintiff discovered some loans were delinquent or unsatisfactory and sued for fraudulent misrepresentation, rescission, and violation of Arkansas securities laws, alleging reliance on false statements about loan quality, insurance, and performance. The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing the contract precluded reliance on outside representations and that the loans were not securities. The court granted the motion, holding that the purchase agreement explicitly disclaimed reliance and that the loans did not qualify as securities under the Howey test or Arkansas precedents because the buyer had direct control and no expectation of profits solely from others' efforts. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice on all counts.

business & regulatoryproceduretorts & liability

This case involved a dispute between Worthen Bank & Trust and National Bank of Commerce over the priority of their security interests in the accounts receivable of debtor Hilyard Drilling Company during bankruptcy proceedings. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of Worthen, finding its June 1983 perfection superior to NBC's because NBC's April 1979 filing lapsed on April 25, 1984, and its July 1983 filing did not qualify as a continuation statement under Arkansas UCC rules. The district court affirmed on appeal, concluding that the July 1983 filing failed to meet the statutory requirements for a continuation statement, that no subordination agreement existed, and that NBC could not establish estoppel based on Worthen's conduct or reliance.

business & regulatorypropertyprocedure