School District No. 45, Pope County v. McClain

6 Citing cases

  1. Morgan v. Clinton State Bank

    900 S.W.2d 216 (Ark. Ct. App. 1995)

    However, he can have only one of the three alternatives. Appellant argues that the court in Van Winkle held that a wrongfully terminated employee who elects to sue immediately to recover damages may collect damages only through the date of trial, and cites Jim Orr Associates, Inc. v. Waters, 299 Ark. 526, 773 S.W.2d 99 (1989), and School District No. 45, Pope County v. McClain, 185 Ark. 658, 48 S.W.2d 841 (1932), in support of that contention. This, he contends, means he can sue again and recover the balance due him. However, Van Winkle states that the employee who adopts the third remedy may recover the "damages" he sustained.

  2. Moon v. Ozark Health, Inc.

    No. 4:08CV00527 JLH (E.D. Ark. Mar. 20, 2009)

    Id. Moon argues that the Court has diversity jurisdiction because his annual salary was $75,000 and Ozark Health should be liable to Moon for the remaining two and one-half years of his contract. He cites Van Winkle v. Satterfield, 58 Ark. 617, 25 S.W. 1113 (1894), and School Dist. No. 45 v. McClain, 185 Ark. 658, 48 S.W.2d 841 (1932), for the proposition that he can recover lost wages up to the time of trial. However, in both of those cases the plaintiff was wrongfully discharged.

  3. Jim Orr & Associates, Inc. v. Waters

    299 Ark. 526 (Ark. 1989)   Cited 5 times
    Reaffirming Van Winkle

    We now discuss the issue concerning the damages awarded by the trial court. The parties and the trial court acknowledge the existing law of Arkansas as announced in School District No. 45 Pope County v. McClain, 185 Ark. 658, 48 S.W.2d 841 (1932). That case involves the doctrine of anticipatory breach of contract.

  4. McArthur v. Smallwood

    225 Ark. 328 (Ark. 1955)   Cited 60 times
    In McArthur v. Smallwood, 225 Ark. 328, 281 S.W.2d 428 (1955), a special court approved the bond issue for the Justice Building and closed its eyes to the realities of the situation.

    But a hiring for an unusual time is strong evidence of fraud and collusion, which, if present, would invalidate the contract.' See, also, School District No. 45, Pope County v. McClain, 185 Ark. 658, 48 S.W.2d 841. Similar leasing arrangements have been repeatedly approve by the highest courts of other jurisdictions.

  5. Chidester School District No. 50 v. Faulkner

    235 S.W.2d 870 (Ark. 1951)   Cited 4 times
    In Chidester School District No. 50 v. Faulkner, 218 Ark. 239, 235 S.W.2d 870, it was held that the board of directors of a school district might enter into a contract covering the employment of a teacher or other officer for a term extending beyond that of the board itself, and that such contract was binding upon succeeding boards.

    But a hiring for an unusual time is strong evidence of fraud and collusion, which, if present, would invalidate the contract." See, also, School District No. 45, Pope County v. McClain, 185 Ark. 658, 48 S.W.2d 841. The fact that the contracts here were signed by only two of the directors of the Reader District does not invalidate them for the reason that it is undisputed that they were authorized and made at a regular meeting, attended by all three of the members of the Board and all voted for the execution of the contracts.

  6. Center Hill School District No. 32 v. Hunt

    110 S.W.2d 523 (Ark. 1937)   Cited 5 times

    "And the court, in stating the general rule in the same case, said: `The general rule is that the official acts of de facto judicial officers, within the scope of their jurisdiction, are as valid and binding as if they were the acts of de jure officers.' Inland Construction Co. v. Rector, 133 Ark. 277, 202 S.W. 712; School Dist. No. 54 v. Garrison, 90 Ark. 335, 119 S.W. 275." Since the court sitting as a jury found the facts to be that there was a meeting by the directors to employ a teacher, and that all three directors participated in the meeting, the contract was valid under the rule announced in the case of Carroll v. Leemon Special School District, supra; School District No. 45 v. McClain, 185 Ark. 658, 48 S.W.2d 841. Appellants contend that no notice was given of the meeting, but where all participate in a meeting notice is not necessary. School District No. 68 v. Allen, 83 Ark. 491, 104 S.W. 172. Appellants contend that the directors had no right to employ appellee for more than three months citing 8952 of Crawford Moses' Digest in support of their contention.