Legal Opinion · Dissent

Villines v. Lee

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided July 17, 1995No. 94-1244Published

1DissentAndree Layton Roaf, Justice

Once again we have litigants caught short in the morass of subject-matter jurisdiction between our chancery and circuit courts. And once again this has occurred after trial on the merits, without either party or the trial court detecting that there might be a problem with jurisdiction; the parties do not even raise the issue on appeal.

Of course, we have repeatedly addressed this issue. We have said that it is well established that subject-matter jurisdiction is determined from the pleadings. Maroney v. City of Malvern, 320 Ark. 671, 899 S.W.2d 476 (1995). Further, subject-matter jurisdiction…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Liles v. LilesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986
  2. J.W. Reynolds Lumber Co. v. Smackover State BankSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1992
  3. Manitowoc Remanufacturing, Inc. v. VocqueSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1991
  4. Saunders v. NeuseSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1995
  5. Daves v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1990

7 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