Legal Opinion
W. B. Worthen Co. v. Thomas
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Decided November 27, 1933No. 4-3192PublishedCited by 11 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
Kirby, J.,
(after stating the facts). The only question for determination here is the constitutionality of act 102 of 1933, approved March 16,1933.
It is insisted that said act is violative of § 10, article 1, of the Constitution of the United States, as impairing the obligations of a contract, and § 17 of article 2 of the Constitution of Arkansas.
In Acree v. Whitley, 136 Ark. 149, 206 S. W. 137, it was said: “It may be stated at the outset that § 21 does not relate to the absolute exemption of personal property allowed a resident of this State, as exempt from certain debts and liabilities…
2Cases cited2 opinions
- Evans-Snider-Buel Co. v. McFaddenCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1900
- Acree v. WhitleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1918
3Cited by11 opinions
- W. B. Worthen Co. v. ThomasSupreme Court of the United States · 1934
- In Re HoltUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1988
- In Re HudspethUnited States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas · 1988
- Clinical Study Centers, Inc. v. BoellnerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2012
- 22 Collier bankr.cas.2d 337, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,239 in Re Marcia Nell Holt and Marvin Joe Holt. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Marcia Nell Holt, Appellant/cross-Appellee. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Marvin Joe Holt, Appellant/cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.