Legal Opinion · Dissent

State, Use Garland County v. Balesh.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 21, 1929Published

1DissentMehaeey, J.

I do not agree with the opinion of the majority in this case. The facts are sufficiently stated in the opinion of the majority, and it is unnecessary to restate them.

The majority opinion states: “It will be noticed that the word ‘public’ precedes the word ‘auctioneer’ in this section, and nowhere else in. the subsequent sections of the statute does the word ‘public’ appear. It was put there by the Legislature for a purpose, and,' in determining what this purpose was, as said in Bullion v. Ætna Insurance Co., 151 Ark. 519-525, 237 S. W. 716, we conceive it to be our duty only to ascertain the…

2Cases cited13 opinions

  1. Biddles, Inc. v. EnrightNew York Court of Appeals · 1925
  2. Shepherd v. YokumIllinois Supreme Court · 1926
  3. Indian Bayou Drainage District v. DickieSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1928
  4. Arkansas State Highway Commission v. KerbySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  5. Bullion v. Aetna InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1922

8 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