Legal Opinion · Dissent

Lawhon Farm Supply, Inc. v. Hayes

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 21, 1994No. 93-840Published

1DissentSteele Hays, Justice

The majority declines to address the question of whether appellant Lawhon has stated a cause of action because it finds Lawhon had no enforceable security interest in the crops of Mr. Good. I disagree.

Before addressing the validity of the security agreement I would point out that on a 12(b)(6) motion, only the pleadings are to be looked at. If matters outside the complaint are presented on the motion it is treated as a motion for summary judgment. D. Newbern, Arkansas Civil Procedure § 11-7 (Sec. Ed. 1993). Further, for purpose of deciding the motion, the factual allegations in the complaint…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Piggott State Bank v. Pollard Gin Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1967
  2. In Re DavidoffDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1972
  3. Security Tire and Rubber Company v. HlassSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
  4. United States v. OakleyDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1980
  5. People's Bank v. Pioneer Food Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1972

4 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