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.
Whetstone v. Chadduck
Citations: 321 Ark. 327; 900 S.W.2d 558; 1995 Ark. LEXIS 510Docket: 95-155
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; July 10, 1995; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
A medical malpractice suit was filed by Attorney Bernard Whetstone on behalf of William and Kim Golden against Dr. William M. Chadduck and other medical professionals, alleging malpractice in the treatment of their daughter, Emily. Following publication of an article titled "Doctors vs. Doctors" in the Arkansas Times, which Dr. Chadduck found offensive, he filed a defamation lawsuit against several parties, including Whetstone. Whetstone responded with a motion to dismiss and a motion for sanctions under ARCP Rule 11. At the hearing, Dr. Chadduck voluntarily dismissed his defamation claim, but the trial court proceeded to consider Whetstone's motion for sanctions, ultimately awarding him $1,000. Whetstone appealed, and the appellate court reversed the trial court's decision, noting that the court failed to consider Whetstone's reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, as mandated by Rule 11. The case was remanded for reevaluation of the sanction amount. On remand, Whetstone testified to incurring expenses totaling $39,032.07, which included attorney’s fees and other costs. However, the trial court awarded only $1,250, without specifying the rationale behind this amount. Whetstone appealed again, referencing the case Crockett v. Wilson, which outlines the factors for determining appropriate Rule 11 sanctions. The appellate court decided to remand the case once more for the trial court to consider these factors. Whetstone also requested that the case be reassigned to another division of the Pulaski County Circuit Court, but the court denied this request, finding no basis for disqualification. The appellate court reversed the previous ruling and remanded the case for further consideration. Corbin, J. did not participate in this decision.