{ "id": 6647476, "name": "CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas v. Timothy QUINN", "name_abbreviation": "City of Little Rock v. Quinn", "decision_date": "1991-06-26", "docket_number": "CA 90-279", "first_page": "77", "last_page": "79", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "35 Ark. App. 77" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "811 S.W.2d 6" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "248 Ark. 105", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1597779 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1970, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/248/0105-01" ] }, { "cite": "283 Ark. 26", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1880001 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1984, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/283/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "30 Ark. App. 31", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6136679 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/30/0031-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-308", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "weight": 2, "year": 1989, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "266 Ark. 599", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8721118 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "600, 601" }, { "page": "43" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/266/0599-01" ] }, { "cite": "305 Ark. 409", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1916829 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/305/0409-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 269, "char_count": 3373, "ocr_confidence": 0.881, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.147130004193216e-08, "percentile": 0.47444773807276025 }, "sha256": "d349360b8da9d3ab76fae2f0ebbb79b2cf4c6f6e55a77d13200a70346f908021", "simhash": "1:05ece8f6852ef7df", "word_count": 576 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:21:33.038957+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Rogers, J., would grant." ], "parties": [ "CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas v. Timothy QUINN" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "John E. Jennings, Judge.\nTimothy Quinn was fired by the Little Rock Chief of Police for using excessive force against a suspect. The Civil Service Commission upheld the discharge, but on appeal the ciurcuit court reversed and ordered Quinn reinstated with back pay.\nThe city appealed to this court and Quinn cross-appealed, contending that the court erred in declining to award him attorney\u2019s fees. In an unpublished opinion delivered May 1, 1991, we affirmed on both direct and cross-appeal.\nQuinn has now filed a petition for rehearing, contending that the supreme court\u2019s recent deicsion in City of Fort Smith v. Driggers, 305 Ark. 409, 808 S.W.2d 748 (1991), should cause us to alter our decision. We deny the petition.\nIn our original opinion we said:\nOn cross-appeal, appellee argues that the trial court erred in failing to award him an attorney\u2019s fee. Clearly, under prior law the trial court was without authority to award attorney\u2019s fees in such a case. Williams v. Little Rock Civil Serv. Comm\u2019n, 266 Ark. 599, 587 S.W.2d 42 (1979). Appellee argues, however, that the award of an attorney\u2019s fee is authorized by Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-308 (Supp. 1989), which provides in part:\nIn any civil action to recover. . . for labor or services, or breach of contract, unless otherwise provided by law or the contract which is the subject matter of the action, the prevailing party may be allowed a reasonable attorney fee to be assessed by the court and collected as costs.\nWe do not think that this proceeding will fit within the language of the statute. Quinn did not bring a civil action against the city to recover for breach of contract; rather, he filed an appeal from a decision of the Little Rock Civil Service Commission which had upheld the termination of his employment. Although it is true that in City of Fayetteville v. Bibb, 30 Ark. App. 31, 781 S.W.2d 493 (1989), we held that an attorney\u2019s fee could be awarded against the city under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-308, in Bibb the action fell within the language of the statute.\nDriggers was like Bibb, in that the employee brought a civil action against the city that employed him. Here, Quinn appealed from a decision of the Civil Service Commission. Again, this proceeding does not fit within the language of the statute. Even if the statute could be extended beyond its literal language by means of a liberal construction to apply to the facts here, we could not so extend it. In Williams v. Little Rock Civil Serv. Comm\u2019n, the court said \u201cWe have consistently, for many years, held that attorney\u2019s fees are not recoverable as an element of damages, except as specifically authorized by statute.\u201d (Emphasis added.) 266 Ark. at 600, 601, 587 S.W.2d at 43; see also, Hall v. Thompson, 283 Ark. 26, 669 S.W.2d 905 (1984). Statutes in derogation of the common law are not liberally construed or extended beyond their express language by logic or analogy; indeed, the supreme court has long held that they are to be given a strict construction. See Wright v. Wright, 248 Ark. 105, 449 S.W.2d 952 (1970).\nPetition denied.\nRogers, J., would grant.", "type": "majority", "author": "John E. Jennings, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Edward G. Adcock, for appellant.", "Robert A. Newcomb, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "CITY OF LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas v. Timothy QUINN\nCA 90-279\n811 S.W.2d 6\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas En Banc\nOpinion delivered June 26, 1991\n[Supplemental Opinion on Denial of Rehearing June 26, 1991 ]\nEdward G. Adcock, for appellant.\nRobert A. Newcomb, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0077-01", "first_page_order": 101, "last_page_order": 103 }