Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bonds v. Carter

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided May 16, 2002No. 01-943Published

1DissentR ay Thornton, Justice

Because I believe that there is a difference between a timber deed and a deed granting mineral rights, and because I think that Arkansas Code Annotated § 18-11-102 et seq. (1987) applies to timber land, I must respectfully dissent.

The majority opinion is premised upon the notion that a timber deed is analogous to a mineral-rights deed. Based on this assumption, the majority concludes that Ms. Bonds may not follow the procedure outlined in Ark. Code Ann. § 18-11-102 et seq. to acquire any rights to the timber identified in Mr. Carter’s timber deed. This assumption is misplaced. We have held…

2Cases cited9 opinions

  1. Hodges v. HuckabeeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1999
  2. City of Lowell v. M & N Mobile Home Park, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1996
  3. Mansfield Gas Co. v. AlexanderSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1911
  4. Bodcaw Lumber Co. v. GoodeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1923
  5. Bharodia v. PledgerSupreme Court of Arkansas · 2000

4 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