Legal Opinion · Dissent

Winkle v. Grand National Bank

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided April 21, 1980No. 78-296Published

1DissentJohn I. Purtle, Justice

I am compelled to dissent in this case. I agree with the concurring opinion the proper rule is that clear and convincing evidence is required before a contract will be voided upon the grounds of usury. I agree that this rule has had its ups and downs. Today it is down. I further agree that we have at least two lines of inconsistent cases in matters pertaining to usury. After this opinion, you can add another line. There is no question that both the majority and concurring opinion correctly state the rules and laws as they pertain to usury. However, from that point on, I am in considerable…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
  2. Garvin v. LintonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1896
  3. Strickler v. State Auto Finance Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
  4. Davidson v. Commercial Credit Equipment Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1973
  5. McDougall v. HachmeisterSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1931

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API