Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Fennell v. Ross

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided June 30, 1986No. 85-178Published

1Concurrence

Ellen B. Brantley, Special Justice,

concurring. While I, too, would reverse the trial court’s decision and remand for trial on the Fennells’ claim for restitution, I would do so on different grounds. I do not believe it necessary to decide whether Mrs. Whiteman was the Fennells’ agent. The majority may well be correct in its conclusion that, under the circumstances of this case, Mrs. Whiteman is properly considered a sub-agent of the Rosses. However, agency issues in the Multiple Listing Service conflict can arise in many different ways, and the resolution of those issues raises many complex…

2Cases cited2 opinions

  1. Foster v. Dierks Lumber & Coal Co.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1927
  2. Hubbard v. ElamSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API