Martindale v. Honey
Supreme Court of Arkansas
1DissentJohn A. Fogleman, Justice
It may well be that the majority has reached a desirable result. But even if the answer given should be correct, it has been given to the wrong question. The principal basis of my disagreement is the question as stated by the majority. I humbly submit that the only question presented to the trial court or in the briefs was somewhat different. It was whether the appointment of a representative to the position of deputy prosecuting attorney violates Art. 5 § 10 of the Arkansas Constitution. The judgment was entered upon motions for summary judgment made by each of the parties. Appellant’s…
2Cases cited16 opinions
- Maddox v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1952
- Oklahoma City v. Century Indemnity Co.Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936
- Richardson v. Secretary of StateMichigan Supreme Court · 1968
- State ex rel. Childs v. SuttonSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1895
- Baskin v. State Ex Rel. ShortSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1925
11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.