Skip to main content

David A. Smith v. Union Carbide Corp.

8th CircuitMarch 26, 2007No. 06-1724
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Wollman, Murphy, Bye
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Unpublished
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Claim Types

Breach of Contract

Outcome

The court affirmed summary judgment in favor of Union Carbide, holding that the Smiths' breach of contract action was time-barred under Arkansas's five-year statute of limitations, as the cause of action accrued in April 1997 when they sent a demand letter but did not file suit until July 2004.

What This Ruling Means

**Smith v. Union Carbide Corporation: Timing Matters in Contract Disputes** David Smith and his family sued Union Carbide Corporation for breach of contract, claiming the company failed to meet its obligations under an agreement. The dispute centered around events that occurred in 1997, when the Smiths sent a demand letter to Union Carbide requesting the company fulfill its contractual duties. However, the Smiths waited until July 2004 to actually file their lawsuit in court. The court ruled in favor of Union Carbide, dismissing the case entirely. The judge found that the Smiths had waited too long to sue. Under Arkansas law, people have only five years from when they first know about a contract breach to file a lawsuit. Since the Smiths sent their demand letter in April 1997, the court determined that was when they knew about the breach. By waiting until 2004 to sue—more than seven years later—they had missed the legal deadline. **What this means for workers:** If you believe your employer has violated a contract, don't wait to take legal action. Each state has strict time limits for filing lawsuits. Once that deadline passes, you lose your right to sue, even if you have a valid claim. Act promptly when contract disputes arise.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.