Court Opinion

ID: 9672540
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:56:45.741614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:16.942176
License: Public Domain

SUPPLEMENTAL OPINION ON DENIAL OF REHEARING Tom Glaze, Justice. Appellee files a petition for rehearing stating this court failed to address several matters appellee addressed in its brief. We find no merit in appellee’s petition and deny it, but do mention its questions as they pertain to the assessment of damages issue addressed in our opinion. Fisher Trucking, Inc. v. Fleet Lease, Inc., 304 Ark. 451, 803 S.W.2d 888 (1991).  First, appellee urges the appellant should not have been allowed to question such damages because appellant never objected to the jury instructions. We merely point out that the instructions on damages were correct; however, appellant did properly challenge error in the assessment of the amount of recovery by filing a motion for new trial under ARCP Rule 59(a)(5). Although appellee suggests the appellant was required first to file a motion for directed verdict before filing a motion for new trial, appellee is wrong. See Yeager v. Roberts, 288 Ark. 156, 702 S.W.2d 793 (1986). Second, appellee asserts that the majority never decided whether the appellant and its lenders should have received any consideration in the awarding of damages for the breach of contract between appellant and appellee. We thoroughly discussed and then decided this issue in the affirmative. Denied.