{
  "id": 1916840,
  "name": "Gilbert Leroy LEMON v. Ike Allen LAWS, Jr.",
  "name_abbreviation": "Lemon v. Laws",
  "decision_date": "1991-04-01",
  "docket_number": "91-56",
  "first_page": "143",
  "last_page": "146",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "305 Ark. 143"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "806 S.W.2d 1"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "627 S.W.2d 681",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        9977540
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/627/0681-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 S.W.2d 454",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        10202966
      ],
      "year": 1950,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/sw2d/234/0454-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "29 Ark. App. 107",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6138764
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/29/0107-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "220 Ark. 256",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1660036
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1952,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/220/0256-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "226 Ark. 192",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718548
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1956,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/226/0192-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 S.W. 758",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1921,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "147 Ark. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1583291
      ],
      "year": 1921,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/147/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 Ark. 433",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893756
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "434"
        },
        {
          "page": "661"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/295/0433-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "265 Ark. 574",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1664836
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/265/0574-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "276 S.W. 586",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.",
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "169 Ark. 657",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1374003
      ],
      "year": 1925,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/169/0657-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "234 Ark. 984",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1688430
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1962,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/234/0984-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 Ark. 241",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1886924
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/300/0241-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 367,
    "char_count": 5579,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.872,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.138391645333298e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8617324793839332
    },
    "sha256": "3d166833438fc2ba614341003bcc93ef08a2db67f995a45ec735d3f1cf47abbb",
    "simhash": "1:4aa21cfd218ffad0",
    "word_count": 936
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:53:54.224345+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Hays, J., dissents.",
      "Corbin and Brown, JJ., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Gilbert Leroy LEMON v. Ike Allen LAWS, Jr."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice.\nAppellant Gilbert Leroy Lemon employed Ike Allen Laws, Jr. as his attorney to represent him in a divorce action. Subsequently, Lemon, the client, sued Laws, the attorney, for legal malpractice. The attorney filed an answer denying negligence and counterclaimed for attorney\u2019s fees. The case came to trial but, just before the jury was empaneled, the client moved to dismiss his complaint. The trial court granted the motion without prejudice. The attorney proceeded to trial on his counterclaim and obtained a judgment for his fees.\nThe client subsequently refiled his complaint against the attorney. The attorney filed a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the client\u2019s cause of action was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and by ARCP Rule 13. The trial court granted the attorney\u2019s motion to dismiss. We reverse and hold that the client is entitled to refile his complaint after having once voluntarily dismissed it.\nThe plaintiff-client dismissed his complaint. ARCP Rule 41(a) provides that:\nSubject to the provisions of Rule 23(d) and Rule 66, an action may be dismissed without prejudice to a future action by the plaintiff before the final submission of the case to the jury, or to the court where the trial is by the court, provided, however, that such dismissal operates as an adjudication on the merits when filed by a plaintiff who has once dismissed in any court of the United States or of any state an action based upon or including the same claim, unless all parties agree by written stipulation that such dismissal is without prejudice. In any case where a set-off or counterclaim has been previously presented, the defendant shall have the right of proceeding to trial on his claim although the plaintiff may have dismissed his action. [Emphasis added.]\nThe right to voluntarily dismiss an action in civil cases has existed in Arkansas law since the enactment of Arkansas\u2019 original civil code. The section of the civil code corresponding to Rule 41(a) was last codified as Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 27-1405 (superseded). This statutory provision on voluntary dismissal, as amended in 1971, is the basis of the rule. Cases construing Rule 41 (a) have interpreted it the same way the superseded statute was interpreted. D. Newbern, Arkansas Civil Prac. & Proc., \u00a7\u00a7 22-1 and 22-2 (1985 and Supp. 1989).\nThe right to take a voluntary nonsuit before the final submission is absolute. Brown v. St. Paul Mercury Ins. Co., 300 Ark. 241, 778 S.W.2d 610 (1989). This absolute right belongs to the plaintiff. Haller v. Haller, 234 Ark. 984, 356 S.W.2d 9 (1962). A plaintiffs first dismissal is without prejudice. Moss Tie v. Miller, 169 Ark. 657, 276 S.W. 586 (1925); D. Newbern, supra, at \u00a7\u00a7 22-2 and 22-3. A claim dismissal without prejudice is not barred and may be filed a second time. Benedict v. Arbor Acres Farm, Inc., 265 Ark. 574, 579 S.W.2d 605 (1979). This is so because a dismissal without prejudice is not an adjudication on the merits. Id.\nIn the case at bar, the appellant-client exercised his absolute right as a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss his claim against the attorney. That dismissal was without prejudice and was not an adjudication on the merits. The doctrine of res judicata bars relitigation when a claim or cause of action could have been litigated in a prior lawsuit but was not. Swofford v. Stafford, 295 Ark. 433, 434, 748 S.W.2d 660, 661 (1988). If we applied the doctrine to a plaintiffs voluntary dismissal under Rule41(a),we would be changing the absolute right to a qualified right. We would be creating two types of first-time nonsuits: those that could and those that could not be refilled. Therefore, we hold that the doctrine does not bar a plaintiff refiling a claim after he has exercised his right to one voluntary dismissal under ARCP Rule 41(a).\nRule 41(a) provides a right for defendants as well as one for plaintiffs. A defendant has the right to pursue his counterclaim even though the plaintiff has dismissed his original claim. A claim voluntarily dismissed is of no further effect. Dillon v. Hawkins, 147 Ark. 1, 227 S.W. 758 (1921). Thus, voluntary dismissal of the plaintiffs original claim does not affect, but leaves for adjudication, the defendant\u2019s counterclaim. Dorsey v. Dorsey, 226 Ark. 192, 289 S.W.2d 190 (1956); see also D. Newbern, supra, at \u00a7 22-4.\nThe attorney and the trial court relied upon cases in which this court and the Arkansas Court of Appeals have held that considerations of res judicata bar a defendant who voluntarily dismisses a compulsory counterclaim from subsequently refiling it as a claim. See ARCP Rule 13; Shrieves v. Yarbrough, 220 Ark. 256, 247 S.W.2d 193 (1952) and Golden Host Westchase, Inc. v. First Serv. Corp., 29 Ark. App. 107, 778 S.W.2d 633 (1989). However, in the case at bar, the plaintiff-client did not dismiss a compulsory counterclaim; rather, he dismissed his original complaint, which he had an absolute right to do under ARCP Rule 41(a).\nIn summation, we hold that after a compulsory counterclaim has been filed, a plaintiff may once voluntarily dismiss his complaint without prejudice to refile it within one year. Accord Leon v. Noble, 234 S.W.2d 454 (Tex. App. 1950); contra Quelette v. Whittemore, 627 S.W.2d 681 (Tenn. App. 1981).\nReversed and remanded.\nHays, J., dissents.\nCorbin and Brown, JJ., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Robert H. Dudley, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Richard E. Worsham, for appellant.",
      "Wright, Lindsey & Jennings, by: James M. Moody, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Gilbert Leroy LEMON v. Ike Allen LAWS, Jr.\n91-56\n806 S.W.2d 1\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 1, 1991\nRichard E. Worsham, for appellant.\nWright, Lindsey & Jennings, by: James M. Moody, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0143-01",
  "first_page_order": 169,
  "last_page_order": 172
}