Legal Opinion

Garvan v. Potlatch Corp.

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided February 21, 1983No. 82-224PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

Darrell Hickman, Justice.

Potlatch Corporation and others filed suit to set aside a tax deed to certain mineral interests in Pike County. The chancellor held the deed was void because the mineral interests, which were listed separately in the assessments books from the fee or surface interests, were not “subjoined” as the law and our decisions require. We agree and affirm.

In a line of cases we have held that when a tax deed to mineral interests derives from a defective assessment it is void. Adams v. Bruder, 275 Ark. 19, 627 S.W.2d 12 (1982); Stienbarger v. Keever, 219 Ark. 411, 242 S.W.2d 713…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Claybrooke v. BarnesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
  2. Brizzolara v. PowellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
  3. Sorkin v. MyersSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1950
  4. Adams v. BruderSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1982
  5. Stienbarger v. KeeverSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1951

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Joshua Duggar v. City of Springdale, Arkansas, and Washington County, ArkansasCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 2020
  2. Gilbreath V. Union BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  3. Selrahc Ltd. Partnership v. SEECO, Inc.Court of Appeals of Arkansas · 2009
  4. Dawdy v. HoltSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1984
  5. Blackburn v. ClineCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1983

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