Legal Opinion · Dissent

Madden v. Aldrich

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 1, 2001No. 00-825Published

1DissentClinton Imber, Justice

I dissent from the majority opinion because the majority’s interpretation of Arkansas’s lawyer-immunity statute, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-22-310 (Repl. 1999), 16-114-303 (Supl. 2001), fails to grant immunity to Ms. Madden as required by the plain language of the statute. In determining the meaning of a statute, the first rule is to construe it just as it reads, giving the words their ordinary and usually accepted meaning in common language. Ford v. Keith, 338 Ark. 487, 996 S.W.2d 20 (1999); Kildow v. Baldwin Piano & Organ, 333 Ark. 335, 969 S.W.2d 190 (1998). The statute must be…

2Cases cited6 opinions

  1. Ford v. KeithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
  2. Dinkins v. Arkansas Department of Human ServicesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
  3. Kildow v. Baldwin Piano & OrganSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1998
  4. Haase v. StarnesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  5. Barclay v. First Paris Holding Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2001

1 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