Hall v. Ragland
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentDarrell Hickman, Justice
Rather than determine whether our cases are inconsistent, I have tried to determine whether they are consistent. Rather than see if the constitution and our cases can condone this legislation, I have sought to determine if this legislation complies with the constitution and the principles of law set forth in our cases. In doing so, I would reach an opposite result because there is a common theme that runs throughout our cases; that is, whether the amendatory legislation can stand alone on its face and notify any legislator of its purpose.
The intent of Article 5, § 23 of the constitution is to…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- People ex rel. Drake v. MahaneyMichigan Supreme Court · 1865
- Watkins v. Eureka SpringsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1886
- State v. McKinleySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1915
- Texarkana-Forest Park Paving, Water, Sewer and Gas District No. 1 v. State Use Miller County.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1934
- City of Manila v. DowningSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968