Osro Cobb

The case involved appellants who sued appellees in equity for specific performance of a contract to sell real property located in Washington County, Arkansas, after filing a lis pendens notice. The trial court dismissed the complaint following a demurrer, but the Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded in 1964, finding a prima facie case. While the appeal was pending, appellees sold the property to a third party, leading the trial court on remand to dismiss for lack of equity jurisdiction since appellants no longer held title. The Supreme Court reversed again, ruling that the lis pendens statute (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 27-501) provides constructive notice binding subsequent purchasers through the conclusion of appellate review, and that the chancery court retained jurisdiction to award damages as an alternative remedy when specific performance becomes impossible due to the conveyance.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned an insurance dispute in which Union Bankers denied claims by the estate of William Felkins for two hospitalizations—one for a jejunal ulcer and one for a blood clot in the superior mesentery artery—citing two exclusionary riders attached to a medical-expense policy. The trial court, sitting as fact-finder, entered judgment for the estate for policy benefits, statutory penalty, and attorney fees. On appeal the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, construing the riders’ ambiguous language strictly against the insurer under established rules of policy interpretation, applying ejusdem generis to limit the exclusions, and finding substantial evidence that the blood clot was not shown to have been caused by an excluded digestive-tract or cardiovascular-renal condition.

business & regulatoryhealthcare

In this case, a divorced husband sought to reduce his alimony and child support obligations under a 1963 divorce decree that had incorporated the parties' written property settlement agreement. The trial court denied the request as to alimony, holding it lacked jurisdiction to modify that portion of the decree. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed, ruling that once a divorce decree incorporates a property settlement fixing alimony, the court has no power to later modify the alimony award based on changed financial circumstances. The court distinguished this from child support awards, which remain modifiable, and noted the husband's income had actually increased while the children's needs were unchanged. The decree was therefore affirmed.

family lawproperty

The case involved a dispute between a father (life tenant) and his minor son (remainderman) over who was entitled to $8,000 in fire insurance proceeds on a family home that the father had deeded to the son while reserving a life estate. The father had purchased the insurance policy in his own name and paid the premiums after divorcing the son's mother. The court ruled that the father was entitled to the entire proceeds, holding that a life tenant insuring property for his own benefit is generally entitled to the insurance money absent any agreement or independent fiduciary duty requiring otherwise. The decision followed established precedent that insurance contracts are personal and inure to the benefit of the insured who paid the premiums.

family lawproperty

The case was an appeal from a conviction for first-degree murder of North Little Rock Police Officer Jerral Vaughn, who was shot during a 1963 traffic stop of a vehicle in which the appellant was a passenger. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction after reviewing claims related to jury instructions on lesser offenses, denial of a motion to reduce the charge, and various pretrial motions including discovery and venue. The core reasoning was that witness testimony and physical evidence established that the appellant fired first with deliberation and premeditation, and any instructional errors were harmless given the jury's finding of first-degree murder.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved an insured who applied for two insurance policies from the insurer, disclosing a 1962 disc operation but omitting subsequent spinal fusion surgeries; the insurer issued the policies and later denied claims for hospitalization after a 1964 car accident, asserting fraudulent concealment of a pre-existing condition. The trial court, sitting as jury, ruled for the insured on the claims and awarded statutory penalties and attorney's fees. The appellate court affirmed, reasoning that the partial disclosure of the disc surgery and surgeon's name sufficiently put the insurer on notice to investigate further, so there was no material fraudulent omission under Arkansas insurance statutes, and the insurer's failure to confess judgment on the proven amounts supported the penalty award.

business & regulatory