Mary E. Green and Michael B. Green, Individually and as Parents, Next Friends and Natural Guardians of Michael Green During His Minority; and Michael Green, Individually v. Alpharma, Inc.; Alpharma Animal Health Co.; Georges Farms, Inc.; Georges Processing, Inc.; Peterson Farms, Inc.; Simmons Foods, Inc.; Simmons Poultry Farms, Inc.; and Tyson Foods, Inc.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. 07-382
Opinion Delivered September 4, 2008
MARY E. GREEN AND MICHAEL B.
GREEN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS
PARENTS, NEXT FRIENDS AND
NATURAL GUARDIANS OF
MICHAEL GREEN DURING HIS
MINORITY; AND MICHAEL GREEN,
INDIVIDUALLY,
APPELLANTS,
MOTION FOR TAXATION OF
COSTS.
VS.
ALPHARMA, INC.; ALPHARMA
ANIMAL HEALTH CO.; GEORGE’S
FARMS, INC.; GEORGE’S
PROCESSING, INC.; PETERSON
FARMS, INC.; SIMMONS FOODS,
INC.; SIMMONS POULTRY FARMS,
INC.; AND TYSON FOODS, INC.,
APPELLEES,
GRANTED IN PART; DENIED IN
PART.
PER CURIAM
On May 8, 2008, we reversed the Washington County Circuit Court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the Appellee poultry producers and remanded the case for trial
as to the poultry producers. See Green v. Alpharma, Inc., ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___
(May 8, 2008) (“Alpharma I”). We also affirmed the circuit court’s ruling on the issue of
expert testimony. Id. Later, Appellants Mary E. Green and Michael B. Green, individually
and as parents, next friends, and natural guardians of Michael Green during his minority
(collectively “the Greens”) filed a motion for taxation of costs for briefing costs, filing fee,
and actual costs for the production of the record on appeal. In Green v. Alpharma, ___ Ark.
___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (June 19, 2008) (per curiam) (“Alpharma II”), we denied the Greens’
request to recover $500 in briefing costs, but we awarded the Greens the $100 filing fee, as
well as one-half the amount of the requested costs for the record.
On June 26, 2008, Appellees Alpharma Inc. and Alpharma Animal Health Company
(“Alpharma”), pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2(b) and 6-7 (2007), filed a motion for the
taxation of costs against the Greens. Specifically, Alpharma requests $500 in brief costs,
pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 6-7(a) or (c), and other costs for the Greens’ alleged
noncompliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-2 in producing an allegedly deficient abstract and
Addendum. On July 2, 2008, the Greens filed their response and recommended that we
deny or dismiss Alpharma’s motion.
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 6-7 provides for the taxation of costs in favor of a
prevailing party on appeal. Subsection (a) states that the “appellee may recover brief costs
not to exceed $3.00 per page; total costs not to exceed $500.” Further, subsection (c) states
that we “may assess appeal costs according to the merits of the case” when we have affirmed
in part and reversed in part. Thus, with regard to Alpharma’s request for brief costs, we grant
$500 in briefing costs because we affirmed the circuit court’s ruling in its favor on the issue
of expert testimony in Alpharma I.1
1
Further, we note that we have jurisdiction over this matter although the
mandate in Alpharma I was issued on June 19, 2008. See Jones v. Jones, 327 Ark. 195, 938
S.W.2d 228 (1997).
-2-
However, we deny Alpharma’s request for taxation of costs for any alleged deficiency
in the Greens’ abstract and Addendum under Rule 4-2. We made no such finding either in
Alpharma I or Alpharma II. For this reason, we decline to award these costs to Alpharma.
Motion affirmed in part; denied in part.
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
