Berry v. Gordon
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Opinion of the Court
Boyd Tackett, Special Justice.
In a petition for rehearing the appellant insists that we were in error in holding that the provisions of Act 399 are severable to such an extent that Sections 1 and 2 can stand even though Section 3 is held to be unconstitutional. In the brief submitted in support of the petition .for rehearing much stress is laid upon the fact that Act 399 does not have a separability clause. Hence, it is suggested, the entire act must fall.
We adhere to our original opinion. It goes almost without saying that there has never been any requirement that an act must have a…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Webb v. AdamsSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1929
- Cotham v. CoffmanSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
- Midland Valley Railroad v. LemoyneSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1912
- State v. MarshSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1881
- State ex rel. Norwood v. New York Life InsuranceSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1914
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Little Rock Family Planning Services, P.A. v. DaltonDistrict Court, E.D. Arkansas · 1994
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1990
- Opinion No., Arkansas Attorney General Reports1996
- Pryor v. LoweSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
- Pryor v. LoweSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1975
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.