Harmon v. Laney
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1Dissent · McFaddinEd. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice
Although, there are numerous reasons for this dissent, I will urge only two points: (1) the present holding creates judicial uncertainty; and (2) the present holding is wrong.
I
Judicial Uncertainty. This case is an attack on the Opinion of this Court in Thornbrough v. Schlenker, 228 Ark. 1012, 311 S. W. 2d 753. That Opinion was delivered on April 7, 1958 by a unanimous Court; and now, after seven years, the present Majority is saying: ‘ ‘.. . we find the Opinion and its resultant ramifications to be untenable.” Bear in mind that in 1958 this Court announced, in a unanimous Opinion, a yardstick…
Also in this document: Dissent · Ward.
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Hare v. General Contract Purchase Corp.Supreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Mattey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 1948
- In Re the Employees of Buffelen Lumber & Manufacturing Co.Washington Supreme Court · 1948
- Moen v. Director of the Division of Employment SecurityMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court · 1949
- Jackson v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co.Supreme Court of Minnesota · 1951
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.