McMillan v. Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentHannah, C.J.
|7I respectfully dissent. The majority declares that Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-63-201 (Repl.2005) is “so plain and unambiguous that judicial construction is limited to what was said” although three justices of this court find that the statute is ambiguous. Both McMillan and Ticketmaster argue that the statute is unambiguous, yet each offers a different and conflicting reasonable interpretation. A statute is ambiguous when it is open to two or more reasonable constructions. See Wickham v. State, 2009 Ark. 357, at 5, 324 S.W.3d 344, 347. McMillan argues that the statute applies to…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Williams v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2002
- Henderson v. RussellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
- R.N. v. J.M.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 2001
- Baker Refrigeration Systems, Inc. v. WeissSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2005
- Brown v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2009
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.