Legal Opinion · Dissent

Wyatt v. Arkansas Game & Fish Commission

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided June 30, 2004No. CA 03-845Published

1DissentAndree Layton Roaf, Judge

I dissent from the majority and would affirm this case. The majority has completely ignored the most important words in the legal description at issue in this case, and has ignored appellee Arkansas Game and Fish Commission’s argument to the trial court and on appeal. I agree with appellee and the trial court that this description is not a true “part” description that is void for vagueness. A “part” description provides no indication as to where a portion of land is located within a larger parcel. However, “that part of...” is a term of art in legal descriptions to designate where within a…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Charles v. PierceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1964
  2. Dierks Lumber Coal Company v. TedfordSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1941

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

Powered by the Exa API