Legal Opinion · Dissent

Dickinson v. Norman

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 30, 1924Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION.

Hart, J.

It is well settled in this State, as well as elsewhere, that mere delay or lapse of time, however short of the statutory period, is not of itself sufficient to constitute laches unless such delay has so prejudiced the other party, by loss of testimony or changed relations, that it would be unjust to permit him to exercise his right. If it appears that lapse of time has not, in fact, changed the conditions and relative positions of the parties, and that they are not materially impaired, and there are peculiar circumstances entitled to consideration as excusing the…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Tatum v. Arkansas Lumber Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
  2. Miles v. JerrySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  3. Reaves v. DavidsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1917
  4. Rowland v. TaylorSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918

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

Powered by the Exa API