2012 Ark. App. 461 - Overturff v. Read’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Here, it appears that the trial court’s order granted summary judgment to Overturff on a breach-of-contract theory and to Western Land/Petrohawk on a bona-fide-purchaser theory. However, at least two of Overturffs claims — intentional tort of interference with a contract and fraud — were not ruled upon and constitute two of his arguments on his attempted appeal. Furthermore, the trial court did not specifically make rulings on the two cross-claims or the counterclaim or dismiss those claims. Because these claims remain outstanding, this is not a final, appealable order. There is a second reason that this order is not a final, appealable order. To be final; an order “must be of such a nature as to not only decide the rights of the parties, but also to put the court’s directive into execution, ending the litigation or a separable part of it.” The order appealed from does not set forth a sum certain due to Overturff | fifrom the Reads and Conwells — only that they should pay- to Overturff the value received for the mineral lease with Western Land Services. This does not put the trial court’s directive into execution, as there is no sum certain stated that is owed to Overturff.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 2014 Ark. App. 473 - Overturff v. Read