Lawhon Farm Supply, Inc. v. Hayes
Supreme Court of Arkansas
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
- Piggott State Bank v. Pollard Gin Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1967
- In Re DavidoffDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1972
- Security Tire and Rubber Company v. HlassSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1969
- United States v. OakleyDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1980
- People's Bank v. Pioneer Food Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.