Title: Brown v. Tucker

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Larry Douglass BROWN v. Jim Guy TUCKER

96-1379                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 6, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- motion to dismiss -- standard of review. -- In
     reviewing the denial of a dismissal granted pursuant to Ark.
     R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the supreme court treats the facts
     alleged in the complaint as true and views them in the light
     most favorable to the party who filed the complaint; when the
     trial court decides Rule 12(b)(6) motions, it must look only
     to the complaint.

2.   Pleading -- fact pleading required -- dismissal for failure to state facts.
     -- Arkansas has adopted a clear standard to require fact
     pleading; Ark. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) requires that a pleading
     setting forth a claim for relief contain a statement in
     ordinary and concise language of facts showing that the
     pleader is entitled to relief; Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
     provides for the dismissal of a complaint for "failure to
     state facts upon which relief can be granted"; these two rules
     must be read together in testing the sufficiency of the
     complaint; facts, not mere conclusions, must be alleged.

3.   Motions -- motion to dismiss -- test for sufficiency of complaint. -- In
     testing the sufficiency of the complaint on a motion to
     dismiss, all reasonable inferences must be resolved in favor
     of the complaint, and pleadings are to be liberally construed;
     where the complaint states only conclusions without facts, the
     appellate court will affirm the trial court's decision to
     dismiss the complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

4.   Appeal & error -- abstracting requirement. -- The supreme court's
     rules require the abstracting of such material parts of the
     pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in
     the record as are necessary to an understanding of each issue
     presented to the court for review.

5.   Appeal & error -- record -- appellant's burden. -- It is the
     appellant's burden to demonstrate reversible error and to
     present a record evidencing such error.

6.   Appeal & error -- record -- restrictions on use. -- It is fundamental
     that the record on appeal is confined to that which is
     abstracted and cannot be contradicted or supplemented by
     statements made in the argument portions of the brief. 

7.   Appeal & error -- record -- impractical to require seven justices to
     examine one transcript. -- A citation in an argument to the place
     in the record where all the factual allegations can be found
     is not an adequate substitute for a complete abstract; it is
     impractical to require all seven members of the supreme court
     to examine one transcript in order to decide an issue on
     appeal.

8.   Torts -- interference with contractual relationship -- elements. -- The
     elements of tortious interference that must be proved are (1)
     the existence of a valid contractual relationship or a
     business expectancy; (2) knowledge of the relationship or
     expectancy on the part of the interfering party; (3)
     intentional interference inducing or causing a breach or
     termination of the relationship or expectancy; and (4)
     resultant damage to the party whose relationship or expectancy
     has been disrupted.

9.   Torts -- defamation -- elements. -- The following elements must be
     proven to support a claim of defamation, whether it be by the
     spoken word (slander) or the written word (libel): (1) the
     defamatory nature of the statement of fact; (2) that
     statement's identification of or reference to the plaintiff;
     (3) publication of the statement by the defendant; (4) the
     defendant's fault in the publication; (5) the statement's
     falsity; and (6) damages.

10.  Torts -- defamation -- statement implying assertion of fact -- factors. --
     To determine whether a statement may be viewed as implying an
     assertion of fact, the following factors must be weighed:  (1)
     whether the author used figurative or hyperbolic language that
     would negate the impression that he or she was seriously
     maintaining implied fact; (2) whether the general tenor of the
     publication negates this impression; and (3) whether the
     published assertion is susceptible of being proved true or
     false.

11.  Torts -- outrage -- elements. -- To establish an outrage claim, it
     must be shown that (1) the actor intended to inflict emotional
     distress or knew or should have known that emotional distress
     was the likely result of his conduct; (2) the conduct was
     extreme and outrageous, was beyond all possible bounds of
     decency, and was utterly intolerable in a civilized community;
     (3) the actions of the defendant were the cause of the
     plaintiff's distress; and (4) the emotional distress sustained
     by the plaintiff was so severe that no reasonable person could
     be expected to endure it.

12.  Appeal & error -- appellant failed to state sufficient facts for relief --
     trial court did not err in dismissing complaint. -- Construing the
     complaint liberally, the supreme court concluded that
     appellant had failed to state sufficient facts upon which any
     relief could be granted and that the trial court did not err
     in dismissing the complaint pursuant to Ark. R. Civ. P.
     12(b)(6); the supreme court modified the trial court's ruling
     to be a dismissal with prejudice.

     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Third Division; John Ward,
Judge; affirmed as modified.
     Tona M. DeMers, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Kay J. Jackson DeMailly,
Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     Donald L. Corbin, Justice.
     Appellant Larry Douglass Brown appeals the order of the
Pulaski County Circuit Court dismissing his complaint against
Appellee Jim Guy Tucker for slander, tortious interference with
employment expectancy, and outrage.  Our jurisdiction of this
appeal is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(15), as it presents
issues involving the law of torts.  Appellant argues on appeal that
the trial court erred in dismissing his complaint.  We find no
error and affirm.  
     From what little facts we have been provided, it appears that
Appellant filed suit against Appellee as a result of Appellant's
being removed from his position as an investigator with the
Arkansas State Police, and being reassigned to the position of
patrol officer.  In his motion to dismiss filed below, Appellee
raised the issues of sovereign immunity, individual immunity, and
the complaint's failure to state facts upon which relief could be
granted as provided in ARCP Rule 12(b)(6).  The order of the trial
court, however, reflects only that Appellee's motion to dismiss was
granted; there is no indication as to why the case was dismissed,
nor are there any factual findings or conclusions.  We affirm the
trial court's ruling on the basis that Appellant failed to state
sufficient facts in his complaint.
     In reviewing the denial of a dismissal granted pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6), we treat the facts alleged in the complaint as true
and view them in the light most favorable to the party who filed
the complaint.  Malone v. Trans-States Lines, Inc., 325 Ark. 383,
926 S.W.2d 659 (1996).  When the trial court decides Rule 12(b)(6)
motions, it must look only to the complaint.  Id.  This court has
summarized the requirements for pleading facts as follows: 
          Arkansas has adopted a clear standard to require
     fact pleading:  "a pleading which sets forth a claim for
     relief . . . shall contain (1) a statement in ordinary
     and concise language of facts showing that the pleader is
     entitled to relief . . ."  ARCP Rule 8(a)(1).  Rule
     12(b)(6) provides for the dismissal of a complaint for
     "failure to state facts upon which relief can be
     granted."  This court has stated that these two rules
     must be read together in testing the sufficiency of the
     complaint; facts, not mere conclusions, must be alleged. 
     Rabalaias v. Barnett, 284 Ark. 527,