Running M Farms, Inc. v. Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Co. of Arkansas, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that there was no indication in the circuit court’s decision that the existence of a contingency-fee agreement dominated over the other factors
• holding that trial court properly awarded attorney fees in insurance case based upon consideration of all eight relevant factors, not just the contingency-fee agreement; addressing section 23-79-208
• “The policy concerns that are present in a civil-rights action are simply not present in a case such as the one at hand [involving attorney’s fees in the context of an insurance dispute]. Thus, Running M’s reliance on this and other civil-rights cases is inapposite.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).