{
  "id": 8721118,
  "name": "Norman F. WILLIAMS v. LITTLE ROCK CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al",
  "name_abbreviation": "Williams v. Little Rock Civil Service Commission",
  "decision_date": "1979-10-01",
  "docket_number": "79-205",
  "first_page": "599",
  "last_page": "601",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 Ark. 599"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "587 S.W.2d 42"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "473 S.W. 2d 182",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "251 Ark. 494",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1633227
      ],
      "year": 1971,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/251/0494-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "224 Ark. 884",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1646592
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1955,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/224/0884-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 230,
    "char_count": 2710,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.89,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.7574242167314315e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7094417473760053
    },
    "sha256": "06da86a46b217454c605a896076ad5bc8def3df8ff632ef80c4b97e09d1fc69b",
    "simhash": "1:8de8e66e468077b6",
    "word_count": 436
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:50.628261+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree. Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Fogleman, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Norman F. WILLIAMS v. LITTLE ROCK CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe only issue raised on appeal is whether a wrongfully discharged policeman may, in addition to his lost salary, recover his attorney\u2019s fees.\nWe find no statutory authority for such a recovery and affirm the trial court\u2019s judgment.\nNorman Williams, a Little Rock policeman, was fired in October, 1977. The firing was upheld by the Little Rock Civil Service Commission. Williams appealed to the Pulaski County Circuit Court. It found Williams had been wrongfully discharged and ordered him reinstated with back pay, minus his outside earnings received during the period of discharge. Williams was denied recovery of the attorney\u2019s fees he incurred for representation in the matter. It is not disputed the sum was $2,500.00. Williams appeals and asks us to hold that Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 19-1605.1 authorizes the recovery of attorney\u2019s fees. It reads in part:\n... In the event that it is finally determined that there was a wrongful . . . discharge of any Civil Service Employee, such employee shall be entitled to judgment against the city for whatever loss he may have sustained by reason of. . . discharge . . . taking into consideration any remuneration which such ... employee may have received from other sources pending the final determination of his case. [Emphasis added.]\nAppellant concedes the general rule is attorney\u2019s fees are not recoverable absent statutory authority. However, he argues the word \u201closs\u201d in the statute includes attorney\u2019s fees. We disagree that the General Assembly intended for the generic and relative term of \u201closs\u201d to have such a meaning.\nWe have consistently, for many years, held that attorney\u2019s fees are not recoverable as an element of damages, except as specifically authorized by statute.\nIn Romer v. Leyner, 224 Ark. 884, 277 S.W. 2d 66 (1955) we discussed our previous decisions and the reasons attorney\u2019s fees are not recoverable. They are in the nature of a penalty on litigation.\nWe have not ruled directly on the meaning of \u201closs\u201d but we did, in a similar case, refer it back to the trial court for a determination of \u201cnet damages.\u201d Sanders v. City of Fort Smith, 251 Ark. 494, 473 S.W. 2d 182 (1971).\nIn view of our uniform decisions denying attorney\u2019s fees absent statutory authority, and acknowledging the General Assembly has in several instances specifically authorized attorney\u2019s fees, we cannot read \u201closs\u201d to include such a recovery.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree. Harris, C.J., and George Rose Smith and Fogleman, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Mathews <3? Sanders, by: Roy Gene Sanders, for appellant.",
      "Joseph C. Kemp, for appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Norman F. WILLIAMS v. LITTLE ROCK CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION et al\n79-205\n587 S.W. 2d 42\nOpinion delivered October 1, 1979\n(Division I)\nMathews <3? Sanders, by: Roy Gene Sanders, for appellant.\nJoseph C. Kemp, for appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0599-01",
  "first_page_order": 625,
  "last_page_order": 627
}