Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Leatherwood v. Meisch

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided November 14, 1988No. 88-107Published

1ConcurrenceDavid Newbern, Justice

The result reached in this case is correct, however, I cannot accept the abstract “colloquial-technical” distinction made in the majority opinion. The will purported to distribute a share of the estate to “my heirs at law on the date of my death.” In Robinson v. Mays, 271 Ark. 818, 610 S.W.2d 885 (1981), we held a child was pretermitted because not included in a devise or bequest “to those persons entitled to share in the . . . estate in accordance with the laws of descent and distribution in the State of Missouri.” By just looking at the two sets of words, it is impossible for me to say one…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Robinson v. MaysSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1981
  2. Taylor v. CammackSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1946
  3. Young v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1986

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

Powered by the Exa API