Southwest Arkansas Communications, Inc. v. Arrington
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1ConcurrenceTom Glaze, Justice
While I join the majority, I cannot agree that provisions (a) and (b) of section 13 of amendment 60 are clear and unambiguous. In my view, no one can read the language contained in these two provisions without being confronted with a genuine dilemma as to what was intended. I write this concurrence to attempt to illustrate how this court should have construed this ambiguous provision. Since after utilizing the proper rules of construction the same result would be reached as in Bishop, I am obliged to join the majority in affirming our previous holding.
As pointed out in Justice Hickman’s…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wiseman v. Madison Cadillac CompanySupreme Court of Arkansas · 1935
- American Waterways Operators, Inc. v. United StatesDistrict Court, District of Columbia · 1974
- Railroad Roofing, Etc. Co. v. Financial Fire & Casualty Co.New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 1979
- Knox v. WilliamsonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1966
- Raney v. RaulstonSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1965