Legal Opinion · Dissent

Haley v. Sullivan

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 14, 1924Published

1Dissent

DISSENTING OPINION.

McCulloch, C. J.

Where the language of a statute is open to two reasonable interpretations, one of which will render it valid and the other invalid, it is the duty of the court to adopt such interpretation as will render the statute valid. This rule of interpretation has been quite frequently announced by this court. Duke v. State, 56 Ark. 485; Leep v. Railway Company, 58 Ark. 407; Dobson v. State, 69 Ark. 376; Waterman v. Hawkins, 75 Ark. 120; Stillwell v. Jackson, 77 Ark. 250; Sallee v. Dalton, 138 Ark. 549; Booe v. Sims, 139 Ark. 595; Dobbs v. Holland, 140 Ark. 398;…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Leep v. Railway Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1894
  2. Waterman v. HawkinsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1905
  3. Shibley v. Fort SmithSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1910
  4. Sallee v. DaltonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1919
  5. Logan v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1921

6 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