Legal Opinion · Dissent

Ozment v. Mann

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided December 17, 1962No. 5-2838Published

1DissentPaul Ward, Associate Justice

The majority affirm the case on the ground that no notice was given to appellees when appellants petitioned for the two nunc pro tunc orders. My reasons for disagreeing with the majority are as hereafter set out.

1. It was not necessary, in a proceeding of this type to give notice to appellees.

The cases relied on by the majority are not in point. The case cited by the majority to show notice must be given is Simpson v. Talbot, 72 Ark. 185, 79 S. W. 761. This was a mortgage foreclosure suit. After the decree was entered and after the term of the court had elapsed, one party applied to the court…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Bridwell v. DavisSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1943
  2. Grimes v. JonesSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1937
  3. Simpson v. TalbotSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1904
  4. Irby v. DruschSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1949

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

Powered by the Exa API