Unlock document.
This document is partially blurred.
Unlock all pages and 1 million more documents.
Get Access
Ark.App.,2010.
Gray v. Moreland
--- S.W.3d ----, 2010 Ark. App. 207, 2010 WL 723926 (Ark.App.)
Moreland testified that, after they got the plane running, it was his intention to test the airplane and land again.
However, he said that he made the decision after he got in the air to go home because of the long day and his disap-
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
work Gray had done evaluated. Moreland contended that the results of the evaluation indicated that the airplane had
to be stripped and re-done. Gray responded that he would sue Moreland. Moreland claimed that he then wrote Gray
a letter offering Gray the opportunity to redo the paint job. When Gray refused, he took the airplane to get it repaint-
ed by Sky Harbour Aircraft in Godenberg, Ontario. He paid $25,000 for the new paint job, and claimed that a regu-
lar paint job would have been $12,000 to $13,000, and the balance was for repairing the damage done by Gray. He
then stated that the “value of the damage is approaching $7,000.”
Gray testified that Moreland's airplane was in bad shape when he got it in June 2006. He said that Moreland called
him two or three times a day, so he had his secretary talk with Moreland. He said that he did not know Moreland
was scheduled to pick up the airplane on July 25, 2006, and that the airplane had not yet been finished. Gray ex-
Gray also testified that he did not sign off on the logbook. He claimed that he filled out a form for his secretary to
follow, and Moreland got the form from his secretary and placed it in the logbook. He denied ever giving Moreland
the logbook entry because he does not give them to customers until he is paid.
The jury returned with a verdict denying Gray's claim and granting Moreland's counterclaim in the amount of
evidence, then the standard of review is whether substantial evidence supports the verdict. Machost v. Simkins, 86
Ark.App. 47, 158 S.W.3d 726 (2004) (citing Depew v. Jackson, 330 Ark. 733, 957 S.W.2d 177 (1997)). Substantial
evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character to compel a conclusion one way or another, beyond mere
speculation or conjecture. Id. “The verdict is given the benefit of all reasonable inferences permissible in accordance
with the proof.” Id. at 55, 158 S.W.3d at 731.
and to pay him for his work. Gray contended that Moreland obtained the plane from him by subterfuge, and Mo-
reland did not pay Gray for the work done. Therefore, Gray maintained that the judgment of the jury against him
could not be supported by the evidence and should be set aside.
In his appellate brief, Gray contends that under the most generous acceptance of Moreland's testimony and proof, it
© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.
work Gray had done evaluated. Moreland contended that the results of the evaluation indicated that the airplane had
to be stripped and re-done. Gray responded that he would sue Moreland. Moreland claimed that he then wrote Gray
a letter offering Gray the opportunity to redo the paint job. When Gray refused, he took the airplane to get it repaint-
ed by Sky Harbour Aircraft in Godenberg, Ontario. He paid $25,000 for the new paint job, and claimed that a regu-
lar paint job would have been $12,000 to $13,000, and the balance was for repairing the damage done by Gray. He
then stated that the “value of the damage is approaching $7,000.”
Gray testified that Moreland's airplane was in bad shape when he got it in June 2006. He said that Moreland called
him two or three times a day, so he had his secretary talk with Moreland. He said that he did not know Moreland
was scheduled to pick up the airplane on July 25, 2006, and that the airplane had not yet been finished. Gray ex-
Gray also testified that he did not sign off on the logbook. He claimed that he filled out a form for his secretary to
follow, and Moreland got the form from his secretary and placed it in the logbook. He denied ever giving Moreland
the logbook entry because he does not give them to customers until he is paid.
The jury returned with a verdict denying Gray's claim and granting Moreland's counterclaim in the amount of
evidence, then the standard of review is whether substantial evidence supports the verdict. Machost v. Simkins, 86
Ark.App. 47, 158 S.W.3d 726 (2004) (citing Depew v. Jackson, 330 Ark. 733, 957 S.W.2d 177 (1997)). Substantial
evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character to compel a conclusion one way or another, beyond mere
speculation or conjecture. Id. “The verdict is given the benefit of all reasonable inferences permissible in accordance
with the proof.” Id. at 55, 158 S.W.3d at 731.
and to pay him for his work. Gray contended that Moreland obtained the plane from him by subterfuge, and Mo-
reland did not pay Gray for the work done. Therefore, Gray maintained that the judgment of the jury against him
could not be supported by the evidence and should be set aside.
In his appellate brief, Gray contends that under the most generous acceptance of Moreland's testimony and proof, it
