Legal Opinion · Dissent

Rachel v. Rachel

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Decided May 13, 1987No. CA 86-434Published

1DissentGeorge K. Cracraft, Judge

I would grant the petition for rehearing and affirm the decree as entered. I fully agree that divorce is a creature of statute and that, prior to the enactment of Act 267 of 1981, divorce in contested cases could only be granted on proof of a statutory ground duly corroborated. That enactment retained the requirement of proof of statutory grounds but relaxed the requirement of corroborating testimony so that Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1207.1 (Repl. 1985) now reads as follows:

Hereafter in uncontested divorce suits corroboration of plaintiffs ground or grounds for divorce shall not be necessary nor…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Brizzolara v. PowellSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949
  2. Brady v. Alken, Inc.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
  3. Missouri Pac. R.R. Co., Thompson v. Gilbert, Adm.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1944
  4. Simmons First National Bank v. WellsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1983
  5. Moore v. City of BlythevilleCourt of Appeals of Arkansas · 1981

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