Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sweeney v. Sweeney

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided January 28, 1980No. 79-115Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in part

John A. Fogleman, Chiéf Justice,

concurring in part; dissenting in part. I agree that appellant had standing to challenge the constitutionality of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 34-1211 (Repl. 1962) and that this section of the statute is unconstitutional by the standards established in Orr v. Orr, 440 U.S. 268, 99 S. Ct. 1102, 59 L. Ed. 2d 306 (1979). I also agree that Act 705 of 1979 is prospective in effect. I would add that it could not have been retroactive. A decree of absolute divorce was granted Mrs. Sweeney upon her counterclaim. There has been no attempt, on appeal, to obtain a reversal of that…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Orr v. OrrSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. Gillioz v. Kincannon, JudgeSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1948
  3. Hatcher v. HatcherSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1979
  4. Wood v. WoodSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1891
  5. Young v. YoungSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1944

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API