{
  "id": 1675849,
  "name": "E. L. BANKSTON v. George DAVIS and Johnny W. STARKEY",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bankston v. Davis",
  "decision_date": "1978-01-09",
  "docket_number": "77-122",
  "first_page": "635",
  "last_page": "636",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "262 Ark. 635"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "559 S.W.2d 714"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "247 Ark. 521",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1600547
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1969,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/247/0521-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 168,
    "char_count": 1722,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.899,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.981962992850618e-08,
      "percentile": 0.5026354818369719
    },
    "sha256": "c037e7828c5d4ca5e75369d82f99edfac034fc1e044f157ade35ede8778c567a",
    "simhash": "1:8879aa2b263ed951",
    "word_count": 270
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:27:42.068781+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree: Harris, C.J., and Hickman and Howard, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "E. L. BANKSTON v. George DAVIS and Johnny W. STARKEY"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Frank Holt, Justice.\nThe trial court dismissed Count Two of appellant\u2019s complaint which alleged that the publication of false and defamatory statements by the appellees was \u201ca wrongful interference with plaintiff\u2019s employment contract and future economic and business expectancies.\u201d The trial court held that the allegation sounded in tort and, therefore, was governed by the three year statute of limitations. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 37-206 (Repl. 1962). Appellant asserts that his cause of action does not clearly fall within the provisions of \u00a7 37-206 nor any other statute of limitations except Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 37-213 (Repl. 1962) which provides for a five year period of limitation.\nIt is undisputed that Count Two of the complaint was asserted more than three years after the catise of action arose. In Mason v. Funderburk, 247 Ark. 521, 446 S.W. 2d 543 (1969), we said: \u201cUnder Arkansas law, a malicious arid wilful interference with contractual rights and relationships of another has been recognized as an actionable tort.\u201d Further, we quoted with approval:\n\u2018Intentional and unjustified third-party interference with valid contractual relations or business expectancies constitutes a tort, with its taproot embedded in early decisions of the court of England, . . . \u2019\nAccordingly, the trial court was correct in holding appellant\u2019s claim was barred by \u00a7 37-206, the applicable statute of limitation.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree: Harris, C.J., and Hickman and Howard, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Frank Holt, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Guy H. Jones, Phil Stratton, Guy Jones, Jr., and Casey Jones, by: Phil Stratton, for appellant.",
      "C. Byron Smith, Jr., for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "E. L. BANKSTON v. George DAVIS and Johnny W. STARKEY\n77-122\n559 S.W. 2d 714\nOpinion delivered January 9, 1978\n(Division II)\nGuy H. Jones, Phil Stratton, Guy Jones, Jr., and Casey Jones, by: Phil Stratton, for appellant.\nC. Byron Smith, Jr., for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0635-01",
  "first_page_order": 671,
  "last_page_order": 672
}