Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Tolbert v. Samuels
Citations: 229 Ark. 676; 317 S.W.2d 715; 1958 Ark. LEXIS 558Docket: 5-1668
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; November 17, 1958; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
On August 19, 1957, a temporary restraining order was issued against labor representatives, preventing them from picketing a construction job in Jonesboro. The chancellor later dissolved this temporary injunction, ruling it was wrongfully obtained but denying the appellants compensation for damages due to lack of competent evidence. The appellants argued they were entitled to substantial compensatory and punitive damages. The background involves McDaniel Brothers Construction Company, which initially sought to enjoin the picketing but was unsuccessful. Subsequently, they purportedly sold their plumbing department to Eleanor Samuels, who filed a new complaint against the appellants without disclosing the transfer. The chancellor determined that Samuels was in privity with McDaniel Brothers and thus bound by the earlier litigation. The court found that the appellants presented insufficient evidence to quantify their damages, with only one witness testifying about a detrimental impact on the unions' bargaining position. The court noted that the burden of proof for damages lay with the appellants. Moreover, a memorandum of expenses submitted by the appellants was deemed inadmissible as it lacked the original records, which were needed as the best evidence. The appellants also claimed reimbursement for attorney’s fees related to the dissolution of the injunction, but such fees are not recoverable under established law. Punitive damages could not be awarded in the absence of actual damages. While the appellants were entitled to nominal damages, the chancellor's award of costs rendered further nominal damages unnecessary for shifting appellate costs. The decision was ultimately affirmed.