Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Bryant v. English

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 4, 1992No. 92-1284Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partTom Glaze, Justice

I concur in part and dissent in part. My disagreement with the majority court has nothing to do with its holding on the merits. In fact, I totally agree with its decision as it pertains to the merits, but disagree that this court procedurally reached the merits.

This lawsuit is a declaratory judgment action and, as such, requires that a present actual controversy must exist. In stating this well-recognized principle, this court stated the following:

The Declaratory Judgment Statute is applicable only where there is a present actual controversy, and all interested persons are made parties, and…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Andres v. First Ark. Development Finance Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1959
  2. Files v. HillSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1980
  3. Robinson v. Arkansas State Game & Fish CommissionSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1978
  4. Block v. AllenSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1967
  5. McFarlin v. KellySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969

2 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