{ "id": 377590, "name": "ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA GAS CORPORATION v. WAELDER OIL & GAS, INC., and Southwestern Glass Co., Inc.", "name_abbreviation": "Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corp. v. Waelder Oil & Gas, Inc.", "decision_date": "1998-04-16", "docket_number": "97-830", "first_page": "548", "last_page": "552", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "332 Ark. 548" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "966 S.W.2d 259" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "324 Ark. 433", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 9160731 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/324/0433-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-308", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "304 Ark. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1881070 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/304/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "315 Ark. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1910535 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/315/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "21 Ark. 431", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1868226 ], "year": 1860, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/21/0431-01" ] }, { "cite": "36 Ark. 191", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1872487 ], "year": 1880, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/36/0191-01" ] }, { "cite": "229 Ark. 676", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1702675 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1958, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/229/0676-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-113-405", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "assessment of damages upon dissolution of injunction or restraining order" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 S.W.2d 1017", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "weight": 3, "year": 1931, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1018" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "183 Ark. 1006", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1441634 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1931, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "1010" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/183/1006-01" ] }, { "cite": "325 Ark. 378", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 369331 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/325/0378-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 449, "char_count": 7102, "ocr_confidence": 0.744, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.103678649314449e-07, "percentile": 0.8595078323099146 }, "sha256": "807cbc0232f0579ebe2cd16fab4e6354f8101b9cb8e1f7d77d5f68b1d4b2aa91", "simhash": "1:952f3ca613cdfcb8", "word_count": 1150 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:57.770497+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Thornton, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA GAS CORPORATION v. WAELDER OIL & GAS, INC., and Southwestern Glass Co., Inc." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Associate Justice.\nThis appeal is the second one between the parties. See Southwestern Glass Co. v. Arkansas Oklahoma Gas Corp., 325 Ark. 378, 925 S.W.2d 164 (1996). In Southwestern Glass I, we held that Arkansas Oklahoma Gas (AOG) failed to show how Southwestern Glass\u2019s proposed pipeline to be constructed in Ft. Smith would be inconsistent with the city\u2019s use of its right-of-way. Because the trial court had found differently and had issued a temporary restraining order enjoining Southwestern Glass and its contractor, Waelder Oil & Gas, Inc., from completing construction of Southwestern Glass\u2019s pipeline, we reversed and remanded with directions that the trial court\u2019s injunction be dissolved.\nOn remand, the trial court held a hearing to permit Southwestern Glass and Waelder the opportunity to show any damages they may have incurred which resulted from the erroneous entry of the trial court\u2019s temporary injunction. See Citizens\u2019 Pipe Line Co. v. Twin City Pipe Line Co., 183 Ark. 1006, 39 S.W.2d 1017 (1931); see also Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-113-405 (1987) (assessment of damages upon dissolution of injunction or restraining order), and \u00a7 16-113-203 (1987) (bond for damages and costs required for injunction to become effective); and Ark. R. Civ. P. 65. After the hearing, the trial court ruled that Southwestern Glass and Waelder presented no evidence of damages that they had sustained between the time the temporary restraining order was issued on June 28, 1995, and when it was dissolved on July 18, 1996. The trial court further declared Southwestern Glass and Waelder were not entided to attorney\u2019s fees under case law or statute, but it still made an award based on exhibits pertaining to attorney\u2019s fees incurred by Southwestern Glass in the amount of $3,978.35, and Waelder in the sum of $8,239.95, as a condition of the surety bond that AOG had obtained when the restraining order was granted. While Southwestern Glass and Waelder do not appeal the trial court\u2019s decision denying them damages, AOG appeals, arguing the trial court erred in making its award. AOG\u2019s argument has merit.\nWe initially point out that the trial court fully recognized the long-established rule in Arkansas that attorney\u2019s fees are not recoverable in injunction cases. Citizens\u2019 Pipe Line Co., 183 Ark. 1006, 39 S.W.2d 1017 (1931); Tolbert v. Samuels, 229 Ark. 676, 317 S.W.2d 715 (1958); Oliphant v. Mansfield & Co., et al., 36 Ark. 191 (1880); McDaniel v. Crabtree, 21 Ark. 431 (1860). Moreover, the general rule in Arkansas is well settled that attorney\u2019s fees are not awarded unless expressly provided for by statute or rule. Security Pac. Housing Servs., Inc. v. Friddle, 315 Ark. 178, 866 S.W.2d 375 (1993); Chrisco v. Sun Ind., Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990). And while not argued, we mention Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-22-308 (Repl. 1994), which allows for the award of attorney\u2019s fees in certain civil actions, including actions for breach of contract. However, this statute fails to help Southwestern Glass and Waelder, since no contract breach is argued here, and as discussed in this court\u2019s opinion, infra, AOG\u2019s surety bond in no way specifies or provides for attorney\u2019s fees in these circumstances.\nIn awarding attorney\u2019s fees conditioned upon AOG\u2019s bond, the trial court relied on the following wording from the Citizens\u2019 Pipe Line case:\nThe rule is thus stated in chapter on Injunctions, 32 C.J., \u00a7 744: \u201cComplainant\u2019s liability for wrongful issuance of an injunction at his instance may, of course, be fixed by the bond that he was required to give as a condition to the granting of the injunction. But, although there is contrary authority, the general rule, unless changed by statute, is that, without a bond for the payment of damages or other obligations of like effect, a party against whom an injunction has been wrongfully issued can recover no damages unless he can make out a case of malicious prosecution by showing malice and want of probable cause on the part of the party who obtained the injunction.\u201d 183 Ark. at 1010, 39 S.W.2d at 1018 (1931).\nFirst, we note that, contrary to the trial court\u2019s ruling that the foregoing language somehow authorizes attorney\u2019s fees, that decision, as already discussed hereinaboye, actually holds that such fees are not allowed as damages when an injunction has been dissolved. In this respect, we find it telling that the trial court, Southwestern Glass or Waelder cite no Arkansas statute, rule, or case law which provides for attorney\u2019s fees when an injunction has been granted erroneously and a bond had been issued to effectuate the injunction.\nSecond, AOG\u2019s surety bond\u2019s language, itself, fails to support the trial court\u2019s award of attorney\u2019s fees. In this respect, the bond reads as follows:\nSurety, on behalf of itself and its principal [AOG], acknowledges their indebtedness to defendants in the amount of $25,000.00 conditioned on the payment by [AOG] of all damages, costs, and attorney\u2019s fees incurred by defendants in the event that it is finally decided that [AOG] is not entided to the temporary restraining order entered in the captioned litigation.\nAs provided by AOG\u2019s bond, Southwestern Glass and Waelder were entitled to damages, costs, and attorney\u2019s fees they incurred in the event the temporary injunction granted AOG was set aside. However, neither Southwestern Glass nor Waelder presented evidence of damages and they do not contend otherwise on appeal. Neither Southwestern Glass nor Waelder has shown it has incurred attorney\u2019s fees as authorized by statute, rule, or case law.\nFinally, Waelder urges us to reconsider this court\u2019s decision in Citizens Pipe Line Co. and hold attorney\u2019s fees are recoverable in any injunction case. To support this requested change in law, Waelder cites only to secondary legal authority, 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Injunctions \u00a7 373 (1969), and offers no convincing argument why our present law regarding attorney\u2019s fee awards should be overruled. See Sanders v. County of Sebastian, 324 Ark. 433, 922 S.W.2d 334 (1996). We decline Waelder\u2019s request.\nReversed and remanded.\nThornton, J., not participating.\nWe note that Waelder argues AOG should not be allowed to contest the terms of the surety bond, because AOG never made such an argument below. However, Waelder and AOG developed opposing theories below \u2014 Waelder arguing the bond supported an award, and AOG insisting that such an award was not permissible in injunction cases or under statute or rule. It is these same arguments that are now made on appeal and are squarely before us for a decision.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Associate Justice." }, { "text": "Brown and Imber, JJ.,\nconcur for the added reason that the bond language regarding \u201cdamages, costs, and attorney\u2019s fees\u201d is in the conjunctive. An award of attorney\u2019s fees is inapproriate absent an award of damages.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Brown and Imber, JJ.," } ], "attorneys": [ "Daily & Woods, P.L.L.C., by: Jerry L.CanJield, for appellant.", "Warner, Smith & Harris, PLC, by: Joel D. Johnson, for appellees." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ARKANSAS OKLAHOMA GAS CORPORATION v. WAELDER OIL & GAS, INC., and Southwestern Glass Co., Inc.\n97-830\n966 S.W.2d 259\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 16, 1998\nDaily & Woods, P.L.L.C., by: Jerry L.CanJield, for appellant.\nWarner, Smith & Harris, PLC, by: Joel D. Johnson, for appellees." }, "file_name": "0548-01", "first_page_order": 574, "last_page_order": 578 }