Legal Opinion
Bowerman v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided September 25, 2014No. CV-13-1051PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice.
| ¶ This case involves two questions of Arkansas law certified to this court by the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in accordance with our Supreme Court Rule 6-8 (2014), and accepted by this court on January 9, 2014. See In re Actos (Pioglitazone) Prods. Liab. Litig., 2014 Ark. 3, 431 S.W.3d 275 (per curiam). The certified | ¡.questions are as follows:
Does Article 16 § 13 of the Arkansas Constitution provide Greg Bowerman with a claim for illegal exaction under the facts and circumstances provided in this case? If so, does…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Ghegan & Ghegan, Inc. v. WeissSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
- Jefferson v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2008
- Nelson v. Berry Petroleum CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1967
- Dockery v. MorganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2011
- Longview Production Co. v. DubberlySupreme Court of Arkansas · 2003
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by11 opinions
- City of Jacksonville v. SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2018
- Wilson v. WaltherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2017
- Prince v. Ark. State Highway Comm'nSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2019
- Sanford v. WaltherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2015
- James Parsons, on Behalf of Himself and All Other Similarly Situated Taxpayers v. Preferred Family Healthcare, Inc., a Missouri Corporation D/B/A Health Resources of Arkansas, Decision Point, Dayspring Behaviorial Health Services, and Wilbur D. Mills Treatment CenterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2023
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.